LINGA JOIS Vs. B S SHAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a landlord in the disputed premises, which are in the occupation of one B.S.Shama Rao, and his petition for eviction having been dismissed, he has come up in revision. The contention of the landlord is that he requires the disputed premiss nor his reasonable and bona fide use and occupation. In fact, the enant is residing in a part of the premises in which the landlord himsalf resides. The portion in occupation of the landlord consists of two living rooms, measuring 11' x 9' and 8' x 8', besides a kitchen and a . The family of the landlord consists of himself, his wife and two young and unmarried daughters. The landlord in fact has four daughters but two of them are now married and hence have gone to live with their husoands. While considering the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord, the two Courts below held that the landlord was sc long living in the two rooms and hence he could manage to live in the very same rooms. It was also taken notice of, that two of his daughters are now married and therefore the family to some extent has decreased. These two circumstances primarily prevailed upon the two Courts below and they have dismissed the petition.

(2.) The specific plea of the tenant that the landlord wanted eviction as he was demanding enhancement in rent was believed by the two Courts. That being so, the learned Appelante was held that he would start with the presumption that the requirement of he landlord was bona fide and reasonable. At the some time he considered that the said presumption is rebutted as the evidence indicated that the landlord could do with only two rooms, and merely on that ground he dismissed the petition. It would not be a correct proposition to held that if the landlord somehow manages with the limited accommodation which is obviously insufficient for him, he should be made to stay with that accommodation for all the time in future, even though circumstances may change in his favour. One does not merely exist but leves, and from that point of view, the requirement of the landlord will have to be considered as his need has not only to be bona fide but also reasonable. The family of the landlord no doubt consists of himself, his wife and two young unmarried daughters. If he is in a position to occupy a more convenient accommodation by asking his tenant to vacate as he can now afford that accommodation in changed family circumstances, a reasonable and bona fide requirement may be held to be established and there can be no reason to disallow his request simply on the ground that he has so long suffered living in a limited accommodation and hence should suffer living in that accommodation also in future. There was definite evidence to show that the financial condition of the landlord is greately improved. Admittedly, the landlord had to borrow some debt from the Co-operative Society and in order to repay that debt he let out the portion of the premises. Subsequently a mortgage was effected to clear the debt. Now the said mortgage is redeemed and this does indicate improvement in the financial status of the landlord.

(3.) As regards the question pertaining to comparative hardship, the statement of PW.2 has fully established that the tenant was offered one or two houses for occupation. He could very well take those houses on rent but for some reason or the other he did not do so. The learned appellate Judge has referred to that statement. Nevertheless, he considered in view of an admission made by the landlord where he stated that he could not tell if the tenant asked to vacate will suffer more hardship than him, considered, that the decision on the question of compartive hardship should be in favour of the tenant. In fact, the admission made by the landlord neither helped the tenant nor damaged his own casein my opinion trom the evidence adduced, it can as well be inferred tha the tenant was likely to suffer greater hardship as compared to the landlord. Taking regard to all the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the reasonable and bona fide need of the landlord was established. The question of greater hardship being as well in his favour, the petition should have been allowed. The Revision is therefore allowed and the decisions of the two Courts below are set aside. The petition of the landlord for eviction shall stand granted and the tenant is granled two months time to vacate. No order as to costs.