SHA MANAKCHAND Vs. SANKARJI MOOLCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my view, the learned Chief of the Court of Small Causes was perfectly justified in allowing this appeal by the tenant against the order of eviction, and, there is no case whatever for entertaining a revision, upon the application of the landlord, from that judgment. The question of the bona fide requirement of a landlord of rented premises, for immediate demolition and reconstruction, under S. 14 (1) (b) of the Act, is sometime difficult to adjudge. Each case has to be judged upon the totality of its facts, and it may be impossible to lay down any hard and fast rule. The matter was considered by me, in certain of its aspects, in Mehsin Bhai v/s. Hale and Co.,, 77 L.W. 194. It has also been considered by Kailasam J., in Ramachandra v/s. Kazim Khaleeli,, 77 L.W. 632, and reference was made to my decision in the judgment of the learned Judge. The two decisions are, in my view, perfectly in harmony with each other, and there is no conflict. No rigid rule can be formulated with regard to the age of the building, and, it is certainly not necessary that the building should be of a particular age, to justify the requirement for demolition. But, needless to say, it is commonsense to presume that very old buildings are likely to have been so weakened in their structure by age, as to make immediate demolition essential, in the interests of the landlord; that is no likely to be the case, with regard to recent building of sound construction. In the present matter, the evidence adduced by the landlord was extremely meagre and tenuous, and, apart from the fact that the landlord bad obtained a plan, Ex. P. 1, for reconstruction, and made previous attempts, there was nothing for the Court to go upon, except his interested evidence. As I pointed out in Mehsin Bhai v/s. Hale and Co., 77 L.W. 194, an application under S. 14(1)(b) of the Act may be made with an ulterior purpose, and, in implementing a statute which has been primarily designed by the Legislature for the protection of tenants from unjust or undue eviction, the Courts must take care to be satisfied that the requirement of S. 14 (1) (b) is established on the totality or complex of circumstances in the individual case. Bona fides will be a matter of decision in each case on the facts, and cannot rest upon a more averment or claim by the landlord. If a contrary view were to prevail, it would imply that where a landlord claims bona fides, that would have to be conceded, unless the tenant establishes mala fides; that does not appear to have been the intention of the Legislature at all. In the present case, I am fully satisfied that the requirements were not established and that the learned appellate Judge was justified in his view that the application ought not to have been allowed. The revision proceeding is accordingly dismissed.