K.I. KANGU Vs. AHMED UNNISSA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the ground that the respondent bona fide required a portion: of the premises No. 80/3, Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Madras, the petitioner who has been a tenant therein for about 10 years has been directed to be evicted and this order was confirmed in appeal. This petition is directed against the eviction The requirement of owner's occupation was rested on the basis that the petitioner's -son -in -law who is a practising medical man wants the portion for opening a clinic. It is common ground that the petitioner's only daughter is living with her in the other portions of the house and has grand -children by her. It is also common, ground that the son -in -law is living with her along with his wife and children. The Courts below were of the view that the words " his own occupation " in Section 7(3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, should be read in a liberal sense and that so read, the instant case would also fall within the ambit of those words. In this Revision the propriety of this view is canvassed by the tenant.

(2.) CLAUSE (i) of Sub -section (3)(a) to Section 7 pertains to the ground of requirement of the premises for owner's occupation on which a tenant in a residential -building may be evicted therefrom provided the other conditions of the clause are satisfied. But this provision will have no direct application here because only a portion of the house is involved in this petition and to such a case the appropriate -provision is Clause (c) of Sub -section (3) of Section 7. That clause reads:

(3.) IN Kolandaivelu Chettiar v. Koolayana Chettiar, (1961) 1 M.L.J. 184, Venkatadri, J., with reference to the views expressed in the cases just referred to, held that the requirement of a landlord's son may well come within the words "for his own occupation". With respect, I am also inclined to take the view that the words " his own occupation " should receive a liberal interpretation. If that is so, there is no reason why a different principle should apply to Clause (c) of Sub -section (3) of Section 7 . The words 'if he requires" in that provision should in my opinion be understood in the same liberal sense as the words "his own occupation" in Clause (a) of that Sub -section have been understood. What is meant, as I think by the words "his own occupation" or "if he requires" is that the requirement is not that of a stranger. It is not necessary to attract those words that the need should be personal to the landlord. But where the line should be drawn will depend on the particular facts in each case. It may, however, be generally stated, without intending to be precise or exhaustive, that the need of close relations who happen to live with the landlord or landlady may well satisfy the words " his own occupation " or " if he requires ". I do not say that the relationship is the only test. Dependency, social customs, and habits, usage, practice of a particular community and like considerations may well be taken into account in determining whether the requirement of those words is satisfied.