CHANDRALEKA Vs. P.K. SUSEELA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful tenant before the appellate authority under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Madras Act XVIII of 1960, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondent landlady filed an. application under Section 10(3)(a) and sought for the premises in the occupation of the petitioner bona fide for her own use and occupation. The respondent complained also of wilful default, but that was found against her. The only ground which survived and which was indeed canvassed by the parties in the lower Courts was whether the requirement of the respondent was real and bona fide. The petitioner resisted the petition contending that the request of the respondent was not bona fide since portions in the ground floor fell vacant which she did not occupy and therefore her contention is that the petition ought to be dismissed. The tenant's contention in the main was that as and when the down stairs portion of the premises fell vacant, the respondent did not occupy the same and has not even given a ground either in the pleadings or in her testimony as to why she chose not to occupy the downstairs portion which fell vacant and was insistent upon occupying the upstairs portion only. The contention of the tenant found favour with the Rent Controller; but the appellate authority found, in my view rightly, that the claim of the respondent is bona fide and it is not for the tenant to dictate as to which of the portions in a premises is required for the personal use and need of a landlord.

(2.) CANVASSING the contentions raised before the appellate authority and reiterating the same, the tenant would state that it is necessary on the part of a landlord or landlady seeking for eviction on the ground that the premises is required for his. or her Own use and occupation to state the reason why she did not occupy one or the other of the portions of the premises when it fell vacant. The question now to -be decided is whether it is obligatory on the part of the landlord or landlady to give reasons as to why she did not occupy a portion of the same premises when it fell vacant and not having occupied that portion when it was available to her, whether it is open to the landlady to seek possession of another portion in the same premises on the ground that it is required bona fide for her own use and occupation. The respondent is a widow who is residing in George Town along with her daughter and a son aged about 15 years who is school -going. On account of the insanitary condition prevailing in the locality and for the reason that it has become very congested, the respondent sought the upstairs portion of premises No. 3, Krishna Iyer Street, Nungambakkam, Madras, in the occupation of the petitioner, mostly on health grounds. She examined herself and proved her intention to occupy the upstairs portion and the reason for the preference as well. She has no doubt not given any reason why she did not occupy one portion or the other of the downstairs in the said premises when it fell vacant. It is however clear from the evidence on record that the requirement of the upstairs of the premises in question by the respondent is really honest. But the question that was mooted before the Controller and the appellate authority was whether it was bona fide.

(3.) IT is impossible to iron jacket the phrase bona fide in the shape of a definition. As it is very much allied and concerns with a subjective element and not necessarily with physical facts, it has to be ascertained only from the facts and circumstances of each case. It will be indeed fallible to prescribe a rule either by way of prudence or otherwise as to the circumstances which ought to prompt a tribunal called upon to decide what would constitute bona fide. The correct content of this phrase is therefore very closely connected with things and actions which have a relation to the mind or motive of an individual.