Short Note : 1. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant was a tenant in the suit house on a monthly rent of Rs.5/-, the tenancy commencing on the 1st of each month. The suit house was constructed about 40 years ago, the walls have cracked, the terrace was sinking and it is in a dilapidated condition. The repairs cannot be carried out without the defendant vacating the suit house. Further on 28-1-1972 the defendant and his brother have committed mischief by demolishing the terrace and part of the eastern side front walls, thereby exposing the structure to rains and there is likelihood of further damages. Therefore, the plaintiff filed this suit for eviction on the grounds that the defendant has created nuisance and for repairs. The plaintiff also claimed Rs. 250/- as damages for the removal of the terrace. The defendant in his written statement denied that the suit accommodation is in a dilapidated condition and that it cannot be repaired without his vacating the house. Held: The first question to be considered is whether the defendant created the nuisance and therefore, liable to be evicted under clause (c) of section 12 (1). There are concurrent findings by the Courts below that the defendant and his brother had removed the terrace and part of the eastern wall and thereby caused damages to the extent of Rs.250/- to the plaintiff. Even if the learned Additional District Judge was justified in holding that this act of the defendant does not amount to nuisance, still it is difficult to understand as to why the defendant is not liable for eviction under latter part of this clause because by removing the terrace the interest of the plaintiff is likely to be adversely and substantially affected as the structure will now be exposed to rains. If the disclaimer of the title of the landlord is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord, certainly physical damage caused to the structure is also likely to affect the landlord similarly. Besides the act of removing the terrace amounts to creating nuisance. Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, 12th edition in para 1213 has mentioned that the acts which constitute public nuisances are all unlawful acts. In private nuisance, on the other hand, the acts constituting the nuisance are not necessarily or usually unlawful. Besides the act of removing the terrace amounts to creating nuisance. Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, 12th edition in para 1213 has mentioned that the acts which constitute public nuisances are all unlawful acts. In private nuisance, on the other hand, the acts constituting the nuisance are not necessarily or usually unlawful. The nuisances are of three kinds (i) causing encroachment on the neighbour's land, (ii) causing physical damage to neighbour's land or building and (iii) unduly interfering with his neighbour in the comfortable and convenient enjoyment of his property. R.E. Megarry in the Rent Acts, 9th Edition has mentioned that under the ground for eviction for creating nuisance-illegal user or deterioration of premises by the tenant, it must fall within one of the following heads: (i) he has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to the adjoining occupiers or (ii) he has been convicted of using or allowing the use of the premises for immoral or illegal purpose or (iii) the condition of the dwelling house as in the opinion of the Court, deteriorated owing to the acts of waste by him or owing to his neglect or default. Therefore, causing damages to the premises occupied by a tenant also amounts to an act of nuisance. But since causing substantial damage to the accommodation is covered under the specific clause (k), the learned Additional District Judge has rightly applied this clause and not clause (C) for the damage caused by the defendant by removing the terrace. The finding in this regard of the appellate Judge has, therefore, to be affirmed. 2. It is true that the plaintiff has not pleaded in so many words that the suit house has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation but it has been clearly pleaded that the suit house was in a dilapidated condition, the walls have cracked and gone out of plumb and the terrace has given way and is sinking. It has further been pleaded that the defendant and his brother have since removed the terrace. A house without a terrace is admittedly unfit for human habitation and nothing more is required to be mentioned in the pleadings. The defendant has admitted that the suit house has become-unfit for habitation. It has further been pleaded that the defendant and his brother have since removed the terrace. A house without a terrace is admittedly unfit for human habitation and nothing more is required to be mentioned in the pleadings. The defendant has admitted that the suit house has become-unfit for habitation. The plaintiff has further pleaded that the house needs extensive repairs, demolition and reconstruction of the walls and terrace and the same cannot be carried out without the tenant vacating the premises. The claim for eviction under this clause has further been rejected because, according to the learned appellate Judge, the plaintiff has not examined an expert to show that the repairs could not be carried out without the tenant vacating the suit house but in the same breath the appellate Judge accepted the oral statement of the defendant that the repairs can be carried out without his vacating the house and although the defendant did not examine any expert, so the appellate Judge was not justified in rejecting the claim for eviction under this clause. The learned trial Judge had found by relying on the evidence of the plaintiff that the repairs cannot be carried out without the tenant vacating the house. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to eviction under this clause. Appeal allowed.