|
December 21, 2007
Tenants Beware: “Landlord
Knows No Annoyance”
In a major boost to property owners and the real estate sector,
a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India has held that
causing damage to landlord’s property and creating nuisance is a
valid ground of eviction of tenants. Hitherto, the landlords
have been at the receiving end of the tenants who resorted to
legal provisions and jurisprudence more favorable to tenants to
prevent their eviction. Not anymore! The emphatic pronouncement
of the Supreme Court on December 14, 2007 empowers harassed
landlords to get rid of their erring tenants. In its decision,
the Supreme Court upheld the view of the Appeal Court which had
overturned the findings of the trial court in favour of tenant
on the grounds of eviction claimed by the landlord.
A Saga of Damage and Nuisance
The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (“Tenancy
Act”) provides certain grounds for eviction of a tenant
under Section 13. The case of
Ranju Gautam Ghosh v. Rekha
Ghosh involved the second ground under section 13(b) which
provides that when the tenant acts contrary to the provisions of
clause (m), clause (o) or clause (p) of section 108 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Property Act). Section 108 of
the Property Act deals with the rights and liabilities of
landlord and tenant.
As per sub-section (m), the tenant is bound to keep, and on the
termination of the lease to restore, the property in as good
condition as it was in at the time when he was put in
possession, subject only to the changes caused by reasonable
wear and tear or irresistible force. It also states that the
landlord or his agent has a right to inspect the property by
giving prior notice. Sub-section
(o) provides that the tenant must not use, or permit another to
use, the property for a purpose other than that for which it is
rented. Sub-section (p)
bars the tenant to erect any permanent structure in the rented
out premises without prior consent of the landlord.
The Supreme Court considered the following
questions of law to determine whether eviction was warranted in
the present case apart from an issue on valid service of notice
for eviction by the landlord:
-
Whether the tenant did any act which
violated clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882;
-
Is the tenant guilty of causing act of
nuisance and annoyance?
On the first question,
the court relied on the evidence of prosecution witnesses and
other documentary evidence such as complaint to the police,
entry in general diary and accepted the case of the plaintiff.
The court concluded that the
defendant caused damage to collapsible gate and put up an
additional construction.
On the question of
nuisance and annoyance, the Court found that the tenants
dismantled the collapsible gate of the landlord’s garage.
Further, on protest by the
landlord, they threatened to kill him and also of dire
consequences.
A photograph of cutting the
collapsible gate was also produced before the Court in support
of this claim.
Lastly,
criminal proceedings under Section 144 of Cr.P.C (power
to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended
danger)
were also instituted against the tenant.
On the basis of the complaint given to the police, the
subsequent criminal proceedings and other relevant materials the
Court held that the landlord made out a case for eviction on the
ground of nuisance and annoyance which we concur with the said
factual finding.
In view of the above, the court arrived at the following
conclusions:
-
that the activities of threatening to
kill the plaintiff, beating the son of the plaintiff and
abusing him with filthy language would amount to nuisance
and annoyance, furnishing a ground of eviction under clause
(e) of section 13 (1) of the Tenancy Act;
-
that causing damage to the collapsible
gate of the tenanted portion and putting up a concrete
elevation of the floor, would amount to doing acts contrary
to the provisions of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of section 108
of the Property Act, thereby furnishing a ground of eviction
under section 13(1)(b) of the Tenancy Act.
Implications
The Supreme Court has
upheld and recognized the basic principles of tenancy laws and
enforced it against a grossly misbehaving tenant. What is highly
appreciable in the Court’s opinion is that it does not presume
mala fide
on part of the landlord; rather, it weighs the facts objectively
and rewards the landlord with its property and the erring tenant
with eviction.
The judgment assumes significance in view of the transformation
of the classical landlord-tenant relationship in to a more
corporatized and organized one. The Supreme Court’s judgment
complements this emerging reality by restoring the landlord’s
faith in tenancy laws and the courts.
Source:
Supreme Court Judgment
|
|
|
You
can direct your queries or comments to the authors
|
|
