VARIJA ACHAR Vs. K BALAKRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the petitioners' learned Advocate and the respondent's learned Advocate at considerable length. Even though the petition is listed for admission, the respondent is represented and his learned Advocate was instructed to strongly oppose the admission of the petition on merits which he has done. Consequently, in the first instance I have heard the two learned Advocates on merits.

(2.) ON behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Acharya pointed out from the measurement of the premises that they are of a very modest size and that the widow with her six children is residing there. He submitted that from the fact that she is staying there with the entire family is self-evident that their economic condition is so very weak that they have not been able to secure any other better place and that it would be impossible for them to do so. Many of these submissions were pressed forward by the learned Counsel because he pointed out to the Court that the issue of bona fides and more importantly balance of convenience and greater hardship are aspects which the first Revisional Court had not applied its mind to; because it was his submission that the general principles regardless of the change of statutes have not been altered as far as these classes of cases are concerned. While it is true that the first revisional Court has not apparently gone into these areas as appears from the order, one needs to take into account the fact that the Trial court has considered all of them and the Revisional Court therefore while agreeing with that order did not find it necessary to record separate reasons.

(3.) MORE importantly, the submission canvassed is hat the error apparent on the face of the record or in other words, the legal error that requires reconsideration stems from the fact that the immediate family of the respondent-landlord consists of himself and his wife whereas the wife's sister and her children though supposedly residing with them would be outside the definition of the family. Secondly, Mr. Acharya was quick to point out that if the need that has been put forward is in relation to the last three persons as the present accommodation is sufficient for the landlord and his wife, that no eviction order could have been passed since those persons do not come within the immediate definition of family. Mr. Bhat on the other hand submitted that this contention itself is incorrect because family within the meaning of this statute has always been understood as being a unit consisting of parents and dependents and he pointed out that if there is a widowed family member or for that matter, closely related young children who have lost their breadwinner, parents and the like, that even though strictly speaking and biologically if they are not within the family that they would be like "foster dependents" and would have to be taken as part of the unit. To my mind, this last submission will have to be upheld on the facts of the present case though I hasten to add that it may or may not hold good in other situations. The real question is as to whether the earlier order is required to be interfered with on this ground alone and I find it difficult to uphold this plea.