BUDHWANT KAUR Vs. SOM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant had sued for eviction claiming that she needed more accommodation for her family consisting of self, husband, 4 grown-up sons and 2 married daughters. Controller allowed the petition. Tenant appealed to Tribunal who held that appellant had 7 rooms and her maximum requirement was of 5 rooms. She and husband required one room, 2 married sons required 2 rooms, 2 other sons required one room and the unmarried daughters needed one room. Tribunal on the finding that appellant had sufficient accommodation accepted the appeal. Landlady appealed to High Court. During the pendency of appeal, tenant made an application that appellant had died and 2 unmarried daughters had been married and thus need had become less. In reply it was urged that one son has been married and the need had not become less] Judgment para 8 onwards is :

(2.) . Counsel for the appellant has vehemently attacked the finding of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment about the availability of suitable accommodation with the appellant and has stressed that it was not for the Tribunal to devise how the landlady should distribute available accommodation among her family members so as to accommodate each one of them. I am afraid there is no merit in this contention.

(3.) The phrases (1) required bona fide and (2) reasonably suitable residential accommodation, occurring in Clause (e) of Section 14(1) have been the subject-matter of numerous judgments. 'Required bona fide', as the plain meaning of the two words suggest, means needed genuinely and honestly. The word 'required' necessarily imparts the element of 'need' as distinct and different from the element of desire. Desire being wholly subjective would belong to the domain and decision of the one who has the desire but need would open up the matter to an objective scrutiny. The mere ipsi dixit of the landlord would not do and the Controller gets from the use of the word 'required' the jurisdiction to assess whether the landlord has made out a case of need of the premises. Among other factors, it will involve a comparison between the accommodation at the disposal of the landlord and the premises occupied by the tenant and the pros and cons of the two, having regard to the circumstances of the landlord, (including dependent family members). In the objective assessment by the Controller, the need of the landlord, which may pass scrutiny, has to be a reasonable normal need and not a whimsical or fancy desire purporting to be and put out as a need. Undoubtedly, this objective assessment will vary from case to case depending upon the facts of each case and will have to be weighed by factors like (a) the number and relatable respective ages of those whose needs have to be considered, (b) needs as to old age and/or ill health, (c) the manner of living one is used to, (d) other special circumstances. In this objective assessment, the Controller is not to weigh in a fine scale each averment of need nor is he to be guided by the mere physical possibility of accommodating the numbers of heads into the numbers of rooms or to work out permutations and combinations for adjustment of such beads into such rooms as if what was being assessed was not the needs of living but merely the needs of existing. On the other hand, the Controller cannot be oblivious to the provision being in the nature of an exception to the rule, applicable only when the totality of circumstances wholly fit into the provision. After all, on his decision in favour of the landlord, one more tenant, for no fault of his, will be out on the road and though this does not enter as a factor for consideration, it certainly endows upon the Controller the need of a very balanced and considered approach.