EKNATH BHANUDAS UTANE Vs. SHANKARRAO DEORAO JUMDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference raises an important question under the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1949. The question is whether a landlord in occupation of a house or a portion of a house of his own in the city or town concerned has any right at all to apply for permission to evict his tenant under Clause 13 (3) (vi) of the said Order, on the ground that the landlord needs the house or a portion thereof for the purpose of his bona fide occupation.

(2.) EKNATH the petitioner, was a tenant of house No. 130 in ward No. 29 of Amravati town, of which Shankar, the landlord, was the owner. The house is a two-storeyed building. On the first floor there is only a big hall which at the material time was in possession of the tenant at Rs. 30/- per month. On the ground floor, there are six rooms of which four were let out by the respondent No. 1 the landlord to the petitioner. The remaining two rooms were in possession of the landlord. The landlord applied for permission to serve a notice of ejectment on the tenant under Items (i), (ii) and (vi) of Clause 13 (3) of the Rent Control Order. These items refer to the different grounds for ejectment of a tenant: (a) Item (i) refers to his being in arrears of rent for an aggregate period of three months, or (b) Item (ii) to his being habitually in arrears with the rent, and (c) Item (vi) to the landlord needing the house for his own bona fide occupation.

(3.) THE Rent Controller and the Deputy Collector rejected the landlord's application upon the first two grounds. These authorities concurrently held that the tenant was not in arrears of rent, nor was he habitually in arrears with the rent. But both the authorities have granted permission under Item (vi) of Clause 13 (3) of the Order. They have held that the landlord who was in occupation of only two rooms out of the six rooms on the ground floor, had a large enough family to require bona fide the rest of the rooms in the occupation of the tenant and therefore the landlord needed the house for the purpose of his bona fide occupation. It was found as a fact by the authorities that there were eight members in the family of the landlord and that the two rooms in the occupa- tion of the landlord were wholly inadequate for the needs of the landlord and his family.