Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the concurrent eviction orders passed by the Civil Judge and the District Judge. The Court upheld the eviction of the tenant on four grounds—default in payment of rent, erection of permanent structures without landlord’s consent, change of use from residential to commercial (hotel), and nuisance caused to neighbouring occupants. It rejected the tenant’s contention that the District Court could not reverse the Trial Court’s findings without a cross-objection from the landlord, relying on established precedents that allow respondents to challenge adverse findings without filing cross-objections if the decree is in their favour.
Facts
The dispute involved a tenanted unit in “Kadadi Chawl” at Kurduwadi, originally let for residential purposes at a monthly rent of ₹7 plus ₹3 towards permitted increases. The landlord issued a statutory notice on 4 March 1989 alleging rent default, change of use to a hotel, unauthorized erection of permanent structures, and nuisance from the hotel’s operations.
The tenant admitted running a hotel but denied default, unauthorized construction, or nuisance. He claimed he regularly paid the agreed rent of ₹10. The Civil Judge found the tenant had defaulted in rent payments but rejected the other grounds for eviction. On appeal, the District Judge upheld the finding on rent default and, without a cross-objection from the landlord, also granted eviction on the other grounds.
Issues
- Whether the eviction decree on the ground of rent default was justified under Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.
- Whether the District Judge could reverse negative findings on other eviction grounds without a cross-objection from the landlord.
- Whether the evidence supported eviction for unauthorized construction, change of use, and nuisance.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The tenant’s counsel argued:
- He was always ready and willing to pay rent, having sent it by money order (refused by the landlord) and regularly depositing it during trial.
- Any delay in depositing rent during the suit should not justify forfeiture.
- The District Court could not reverse the Trial Court’s rejection of other grounds without a cross-objection from the landlord.
- Evidence did not establish that the tenant erected permanent structures, changed the use without consent, or caused nuisance.
Respondent’s Arguments
The landlord’s counsel countered:
- The tenant failed to pay or deposit rent within the statutory period after notice, did not seek fixation of standard rent, and did not deposit rent with interest and costs before the first hearing, making forfeiture inevitable under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act.
- No cross-objection was required since the decree was entirely in the landlord’s favour; under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC, the respondent can challenge adverse findings without filing a cross-objection.
- Evidence showed the tenant ran a hotel, erected a tin-shed structure, changed use from residential to commercial without consent, and caused nuisance to residential neighbours.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reaffirmed that under Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act:
- To avoid forfeiture, the tenant must tender rent within one month of notice, or deposit rent, permitted increases, interest, and costs before the first hearing, or dispute standard rent within one month.
- Non-compliance with any of these conditions results in forfeiture.
On cross-objections, the Court cited Banarsi v. Ram Phal, S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore, and Saurav Jain v. ABP Design, holding that:
- Respondents may challenge adverse findings without cross-objections when the decree is wholly in their favour.
- Cross-objections are necessary only when seeking to alter the decree itself.
Precedent Analysis
- Banarsi v. Ram Phal – Clarified situations where respondents can challenge adverse findings without cross-objections.
- S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore – Affirmed that respondents can assail adverse findings to support a favourable decree without cross-objections.
- Saurav Jain v. ABP Design – Reiterated that cross-objections are required only if part of the decree is challenged.
Court’s Reasoning
- Rent Default – The tenant failed to tender rent within one month of notice or deposit it before the first hearing, and did not dispute standard rent in time. Subsequent deposits during trial did not cure the default.
- Cross-Objection Issue – No cross-objection was necessary for the landlord to challenge adverse findings; the District Judge acted within jurisdiction.
- Unauthorized Structure & Change of Use – Evidence, including admissions by the tenant and witness testimony, established the hotel operation and erection of tin-shed structures without consent. The premises were originally for residence.
- Nuisance – Running a hotel with a furnace and generating waste in a residential locality caused annoyance to neighbours, constituting nuisance.
Conclusion
The High Court upheld the eviction on all grounds and dismissed the writ petition with costs. The tenant’s default, unauthorized alterations, change of user, and nuisance were duly proved. No procedural error occurred in the District Judge’s decision.
Implications
This ruling underscores:
- Strict compliance with statutory rent payment provisions is essential to avoid forfeiture.
- Respondents can challenge adverse findings in appeal without cross-objections when the decree is in their favour.
- Unauthorized change of use and nuisance can independently justify eviction, even if rent default is proved.
Cases Referred
- Banarsi v. Ram Phal – Scope of challenging adverse findings without cross-objections.
- S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore – Support for decree without cross-objection.
- Saurav Jain v. ABP Design – Clarification on cross-objection requirements.
FAQs
1. Can a landlord secure eviction for reasons beyond rent default if the trial court rejected them?
Yes, an appellate court can grant eviction on additional grounds if evidence supports them, even without a cross-objection, when the decree is otherwise in the landlord’s favour.
2. What happens if rent is deposited late during the suit?
Late deposits do not cure statutory defaults; tenants must comply strictly with timelines under Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act.
3. Does running a business from residential premises without consent justify eviction?
Yes, it constitutes a change of user and can be a ground for eviction, especially if it causes nuisance to neighbours.