BATHOOL BAI Vs. A.S. VAIDYANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is preferred by the landlady whose application for eviction of the respondent -tenant on the ground that she required the premises bona fide for her own occupation was dismissed by the appellate authority.

(2.) THE landlady let out the suit premises to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 80 from 1941. It is common ground that the respondent is a doctor by profession and is also incidentally carrying on business in a portion of the premises known as Scientific Pharmacy. It is also common ground that the premises was let out to the respondent only for residential purposes. The landlady has been attempting for some years to get possession of the premises by filing applications for eviction of the tenant but she has not been successful. The landlady was originally living in a rented premises in Royapettah. As her only daughter was at Bombay she vacated the rented premises and went to Bombay in order to undergo a major surgical operation in Bombay. She returned to Madras in 1959 and was temporarily staying with a relation of hers. The old complaint again reappeared and she again went to Bombay for further treatment and finally returned to Madras in the month of January, 1962. It is true that she has another house which is bigger one in Triplicane. That being very spacious and she being alone she does not want to occupy that premises. Further she wants to live in the place where her community people live. In those circumstances, she filed the present application, out of which this revision arises, for eviction of the tenant on the ground that she required the premises bona fide for her own occupation. The learned Rent Controller found that the requirement of the landlady was bona fide and ordered eviction. But on appeal, this finding was reversed, and the application was dismissed. It is again this order of dismissal of her application, the landlady has filed the revision petition.

(3.) THE word 'bona fide' has been the subject of judicial interpretation. While construing the word 'bona fide' in the Act, it must be borne in mind that it is the duty of the Court to see that the premises are required both reasonably and bona fide. Bona fides may be proved in an ordinary way like any other fact in issue or a relevant fact. There is no such rule of law that ' bona fides', being a subjective matter, can only be proved by the landlord stepping into the witness box. In Basantlal v. Chakravarty : AIR1950Cal249 the Calcutta High Court has occasion to deal with the connotation of the word ' bona fide requirement' of the landlord. It was observed that gross unreasonableness of the landlord might, in proper circumstances, lead the Court to the conclusion that the landlord's requirement was not bona fides, and that how much unreasonableness would be regarded by the Court as evidence of mala fides of the landlord would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The requirement of the landlord must be judged as at the date of hearing. In Harcoute v. Lowe, 35 T.L.R. 255 Lush, J., observed that the only time which it was necessary to consider in order to apply the provisions of the section was the time when the Court was asked to make the order. The landlord must have a genuine present need for the house for his occupation. The term ' require' implies that it is more under the force of his personal circumstances than under the impulse of a desire that the landlord needs the premises; but the desire in not altogether to be ruled out. Somervell L.J., in Burman v. Woods, L.R.(1948) 1 K.B. 111 held that the altered circumstances must be taken into consideration in moulding the final decree or order. The fact that the landlady has an accommodation elsewhere is no reason for holding that the landlady does not reasonably require the premises. Bearing the principles laid down in the cases cited, I have to consider whether the application of the landlady is a bona fide one or not. It cannot be denied that the landlady is now living in a rented house. It has been held by Ramachandra Iyer, Officiating Chief Justice, in a recent decision reported in Abdul Kareem v. C.M. Mohamed : (1962)1MLJ382 that, when a landlord or landlady lives in a rented premises, it would be enough to satisfy the Court in an application for eviction of the tenant that it is a bona fide requirement of the landlord or landlady.