MOHANLAL DEVILAL Vs. LAXMINARAYAN DHULJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff from the concurrent judgments of the lower Courts dismissing his suit for ejectment of the defendant -respondent from a house tenanted by him on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of bona fide requirement for the residence of himself and his family was unacceptable, he having other accommodation in the same town that was equally suitable. There is no controversy at this stage in regard to the rent payable by the tenant -respondent. This being a second appeal, we can only see if the facts found by the lower Courts are capable of a fairer and more plausible interpretation in favour of the plaintiff. His own argument is that the landlord is entitled to choose, in a fair and reasonable manner any of the several units of accommodation owned by him; the Courts cannot compel him to live in the unit he does not want, as long as choice is not mala fide or grossly unreasonable. The facts of the case are that the subject -matter of the suit the house numbered 104 in the Juni Kasera Bakhal has been in the occupancy of the defendant a schoolmaster on a low rent of 5 per month, which was fixed years ago and which cannot be raised and has not in fact, been so increased. The plaintiff -appellant is a businessman having his main business premises in what is called the M. T. Cloth Market at Indore, very near the Kasera Bakhal as stated in the evidence, between 2 and 3 furlongs. The business premises themselves consist of a shop or godown down -stairs with one or two rooms upstairs. In the same locality, at about the same distance from the M. T. Cloth Market, the plaintiff had a rented house numbered 47 in the Bajajkhana Chowk; before the suit was filed, the landlord of that house had taken possession of half the accommodation for use by him as the office of a company but it appears that the plaintiff was still in possession of some of the rooms in this house. His own case was that his landlord had noticed him to vacate these rooms as well but the Courts have found that the notice had not been issued at that time, though the landlord's secretary or manager had been examined to say so. However, there is no finding about the suitability for the plaintiff's residence of this part of House No. 47 in Bajajkhana Chowk still in the possession of the plaintiff at the time of the suit side by side with that landlord's company offices.

(2.) ABOUT three miles away from this locality the plaintiff was then building a house in the locality called New Palasia; he completed it during the pendency of the suit. For want of other accommodation, and pending the final decision in this litigation, the plaintiff moved into the New Palasia house. However, his argument is that though it has sufficient living space for himself and his family, the New Palasia house is altogether unsuitable for him, on account of distance from his business premises in the M. T. Cloth Market and the schools for the children and his business associations and social relations which are all in the locality of the M. T. Cloth Market and the Kasera Bakhal. The trial Court did not give any finding about the suitability of this or the part of the House No. 47 in Bajajkhana Chowk still in the plaintiff's possession, or the spare rooms in the M. T. Cloth Market shop. But it generally felt that the plaintiff was not in need of the house No. 104 Juni Kasera Bakhal; so. it rejected the prayer for ejectment. In his appeal, the appellate Court found that the New Palasia house into which he had already moved, was quite suitable and there was no more necessity of another house. From this he has come up in second appeal emphasizing both the subjective element in the choice of suitable accommodation, and apart from it, the unsuitability of the other units of accommodation, in particular, the house in New Palasia. Section 4 (g) of the Accommodation Control Act reads - In the case of residential accommodation, that the landlord genuinely requires the accommodation for his own residence or that of any person of his family bona fide residing or to reside with him and there is no other accommodation...for such residence.

(3.) IT is obvious that this would result in some serious inconvenience to the defendant. He has been enjoying the accommodation with which he is satisfied for the very low rent of 5 per month; he cannot, for obvious reasons, take on rent the plaintiff's New Palasia accommodation, as rents are very high in that locality. If the defendant looks for other accommodation, it is certain that he will have to pay much more than 5 per month. But that is no reason why the plaintiff should be seriously inconvenienced. The plaintiff is the owner of the property and he is entitled to choose whether he should reside in what he finds to be the most suitable accommodation near his place of business, or should stay at a distance in a bigger or more fashionable house and put up with the inconvenience of having his business at some distance, buy a motor car for it, or pay the carriage fare day after day. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. In view of the special circumstances of the case, the costs throughout should be borne by the respective parties.