SUDERSHAN LAL AGARWAL Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [Respondent sued tenant for eviction on the ground that he needed the garage in the occupation of the appellant for parkng his car. Rent Controller and tribunal held in his favour. Tenant appealed to the High Court. Appeal was dismissed. Paras 4 to 9 of the Judgement are :-

(2.) The first question is whether the premises were wanted by the landlord for occupation as a residence. The word "residence" has not been defined in the Act but it has been used in connection with the user of 'premises' which are defined in section 2 (i) of the Act. The definition of "premises" is a building or part of a building which is, or is intended to be, let separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose, and includes the garden, grounds and out-houses, if any, appertaining to such building or part of the building. The premises in dispute are in the nature of an out-house to the main house of the landlord and are, therefore, included in the definition of "premises". These premises were let for use as residence by the tenant who actually lives in them. Are these required by the landlord for "residence"? As already observed, the relevance of the word "residence" in the Act is in the context of the user of any premises. While using the premises every portion of the built up area is not necessarily used for the living of human beings. For instance, water closets, store-rooms, attics, verandhas and out-houses may not be used for residence as such but for purposes incidental to residence. When premises are said to be used for residence, it is implied that parts of the premises may be used for purposes incidental to actual residence. Such purposes are, therefore, included in residential purposes.

(3.) The question is whether a motor garage is such necessary incident of human habitation or residence as to be included in the word "residence"?. Whenever a garage is actually used by the resident of the house for the parking of his car there would be no dispute that the house as well as the garage was being used for a residential purpose. Would the same be true when the landlord wishes to evict the residential tenant of a garage on the ground that he wants the garage for use as a "residence"? It would appear that the need of the landlord to keep his car in ths garaga is a necessary incident of the residence of the landlord in the main house and therefore the garage is wanted by the landlord "for occupation as a residence' within the meaning of proviso (e) section 14 (1) of the Act. Just as we say that the landlord is using house as residence without meaning thereby that every nook and corner of his his house is used for tha living of human beings, similarly we mean that the garage is wanted by the landload for his residence in the sense that he wants it for a purpose which is a necessary incident of his residence in the main house. I find so.