RATI RAM Vs. LAXMI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRIMARY facts are more or less admitted and not in dispute, It is a case where suit premises which comprises of one room and one 'kothri' are needed by the landlady mainly for the exclusive and private use for her and her family consisting of herself, her husband and three grown up adult children, one of whom is a daughter aged 21 years.

(2.) THE house in question which has as many as seven rooms on the ground floor has such a topography that the respondent's privacy is bound to be affected and intruded upon if the petitioner and his family continue occupying the demised premises as the open courtyard is surrounded by these rooms and entry to these rooms is through the said courtyard. Requirement of the suit premises by the respondent has been held by the Court of fact i.e. learned Additional Rent Controller as bonafide.

(3.) I am afraid the ratio of none of aforesaid judgments is attracted in the instant proceedings as the petitioner has failed to show that the respondent has any other alternative, reasonable accommodation. In this case, the respondent -landlady was in occupation of one room only but was successful in getting the eviction of a tenant who was occupying three rooms. The concept of availability of alternative reasonable accommodation is that such accommodation should satisfy the requirement of the landlord. For instance if the landlord requires five rooms and succeeds in eviction of two rooms and there is one room with him the plea that he has reasonable alternative suitable accommodation but has refused to occupy the same is difficult to accept as the accommodation available with the landlord does not fall within the ambit of "alternative reasonably suitable accommodation". Thus keeping three or four rooms unoccupied was justified as this was much below the requirement.