SMT. VIJAY LAKSHMI Vs. AMBA CHARAN SINGH ASTHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The release application has been filed for the need of residence for Manager engaged by the plaintiff to manage his properties. The plaintiff has come out with the case that he has several properties in the city of Gorakhpur which are in occupancy of different tenants. He also owned a farm house and to look after the farm house and other properties, he needed a Manager. The person who has been engaged for the said purpose now needs a residential accommodation.

(2.) The tenant has contested the release application on the ground that the Manager does not come within the definition of family under Sec. 3 (g) of the Act. The requirement stated in the release application is not genuine rather it is only a desire to evict the tenant.

(3.) Both the Court below decided against the tenant. While allowing the release application, the reliance has been placed upon the judgement in ARC 2001 (2) page-405 and ARC 1999 (2) page-430, wherein the expression occupation by himself as contained in Sec. 21(1)(a) has been interpreted/explained. Those matters relate to residential accommodations wherein the Court has held that the landlord can press the need for his assistant, a relative, or a third person who is looking after him. It was further observed that the Court cannot ask the landlord who is living alone not to take assistance of another person. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases, while interpreting the expression occupation by himself , the need set up by the landlord for the persons therein was found genuine. The word family as defined under Sec. 3(g) of the Act has been given expanded meaning. No general proposition has been laid down to include a third person in the definition of family . The definition of family in Sec. 3(g) of the Act is inclusive and relates to the family members of the landlord namely his son, daughter or male lineal descendant of son and daughter and includes a person who is normally residing with him or her. This clearly reflects that only in those case where the landlord is living alone and he keeps a person as his servant or assistant to look after him, the release can be pressed for the need of that person.