HC upholds eviction notice to tenant for causing ruckus | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Dec 15, 2017-Friday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

HC upholds eviction notice to tenant for causing ruckus

The eviction order of a tenant for creating nuisance at a housing society in Thane by running a playgroup in a residential tenement, was upheld by the Bombay high court.

mumbai Updated: May 18, 2013 01:34 IST
HT Correspondent

The eviction order of a tenant for creating nuisance at a housing society in Thane by running a playgroup in a residential tenement, was upheld by the Bombay high court.

Acting on a suit filed by landlady Sudha Barve, a joint civil court junior division at Thane had, on July 29, 1999, ordered the eviction of Ranjana Padhye, because of the nuisance created by 18-20 children at a crèche run by her and change of use of the residential premises without the consent of the landlord.

Three years later, a joint district judge at Thane reversed the order based on an appeal by Padhye and dismissed Barve’s suit. “If parents of the children come to the premises on scooters or by autorickshaws, some nuisance is bound to be created. However, this is not an actionable nuisance,” the joint district judge had said.

However, on May 10, the HC struck down the joint district judge’s order and upheld the order of eviction. Justice Bhushan Gavai struck down the appellate court’s findings after finding several witnesses supporting the landlady’s case. The judge also noted that the cooperative housing society had complained about the nuisance and requested Padhye to stop it.

Justice Gavai also upheld the trial court’s finding that the residential tenement had been put to commercial use without the consent of the landlady.

Further, HC also looked into the point of comparative hardship. In this respect, the trial court had ruled in favour of the landlady since she had a family of six and needed the premises for accomodating her family. Further, since Padhye owned a house at Dombivli, she could shift there with her family, the court had held. However, the judge rejected this approach of the appellate court to direct a separation of the landlady’s family.