C.S.P. Singh, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by the tenant against whom a suit for ejectment and for mesne profit had been filed by the landlord. The appellant is the tenant of the first floor of the premises. The landlord used to supply water to the premises from pipes connected to an over head tank. It appears that the water supply at the instance of the landlord either diminished or was completely stopped, and the appellant as a result, took a new water connection with the permission of the District Magistrate in 1962, The pressure of the water lines were not sufficient to ensure a continuous supply of water in the first floor, and the defendant tenant fitted a water tap on 26 -3 -1966 in the water pipe which had been exclusively taken by him. This pipe was in a Bhandaria underneath a Chabutra on the ground floor which was not included in the tenement of the defendant. The tenant, thereafter, appears to have fitted a small centrifugal pump for lifting water from this tap to his premises. The plaintiff landlord has alleged that the fixing of the water tap and of the centrifugal pump were without his consent and that the defendant had forcibly made these installations and had continued to use the pump without his permission. It is alleged by the plaintiff that after the making of the installation by the tenant, the plaintiff landlord's husband requested the tenant to remove the tap and the pump and to withdraw from possession of the Bhandaria, but the tenant appellant No. 1 started quarrelling and continued to use the pump. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed a suit for ejectment of the tenant & inasmuch as the premises were subject to the Rent Control Act and the suit had been filed without obtaining permission from the Distt. Magistrate based her case primarily on S. 3 sub -cl. (d) of the Act which makes a tenant liable for ejectment on the ground that he had created a nuisance or had done any act which was likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord. The acts said to be amounting to a nuisance were: (1) installation of a water tap and centrifugal pump which created considerable noise and unauthorized occupation of the Bhandaria; (2) damage caused to the foundation and the surrounding walls of the Bhandaria due to seepage of the water from the tap; (3) quarrelling with the husband of the plaintiff on account of his requesting the tenants to remove the tap and the centrifugal pump and (4) entering into the Bhandaria for the purposes of working the pump. The acts which were alleged to adversely and substantially affect the plaintiff's interest were the damage caused to the walls of the Bhandaria and the foundation by the seepage of water from the tap. The defendants asserted that they had been compelled to install another water pipe on account of the landlord ceasing to supply water from the overhead -tank and that no nuisance was caused by the working of the centrifugal pump and neither any damage occurred on account of the working of the pump. It was further pleaded that the quarrel, if any, between the husband of the landlord and the tenants, does not amount to a nuisance qua the landlord.
(2.) The trial court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court has decreed the suit and has held that the installation of the water -pipe had caused seepage of water and was likely to cause damage to the foundations of the plaintiff's building and had caused damage to the wall, and further that the installation of the water tap was likely to substantially diminish the value of the building. It has also held that the accumulation of water on account of the running of the centrifugal pump amounted to a nuisance and that the act of the defendants in going to the Bhandaria for the purposes of the working of the pump as also their quarrelling with the plaintiff's husband also amounted to a nuisance.
(3.) The finding that installation of the water tap was likely to substantially diminish the value of the building seems to bring the case u/S. 3 sub -cl. (c) of the Rent Control and Eviction Act, but this conclusion is plainly untenable and has not been supported by counsel for the respondent either. Before S. 3(c) of the Act can apply it must be shown that the tenant has made or permitted to be made any constructions which materially altered the accommodation or was likely to substantially diminish its value. The diminution in value must be that of the accommodation and it cannot be said that by the installation of another water pipe the value of the accommodation would diminish; on the contrary if there are two pipelines in an accommodation it may in some cases enhance its value.;