BABOOLAL SHRIVASTAVA Vs. JAMUNA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point which remains to be considered is as to whether the non -applicant has been able to establish that after getting 7 rooms vacated from other tenants, she let out two rooms to Shri Choubey, whether the requirment of the landlady non -applicant still can be said to be sincere, genuine and bonafide. Though it has come in the deposition of Kailash Chand Chourasia that inspite of the rooms having been occupied by the family members they required more accommodation but from the pleadings it does not transpire that it was so pleaded either initially or even after amendment. Initially, the only requirement of the family members was for two rooms in occupation of the tenant, who is occupying one room on the ground floor and the other on the first floor. According to Kailash there are 29 rooms in ground floor out of which 20 rooms are with tenants. No such suit has been filed against other tenants. Admittedly, one room on the ground floor close to the room of the applicant -tenant was vacated by the tenant Abbas and is in occupation of the non - applicant landlady. Even the other room on the ground floor close to the residential room of the applicant tenant was also vacated by Lilabai Thakur on 15.9.1990and is in occupation of the non -applicant landlady. Two rooms on the first floor vacated by the tenant Santosh Sharma were let out by the non -applicant to one Shri Choubey - - one room in May, 1990 and the other on 29.8.1990. Leaving aside the two rooms occupied by the lady doctor Dr.Smt. Verma, which are non -residential, the non -applicant has failed to plead and prove - as to how and why the accommodation vacated by the tenant Santosh Sharma is not suitable to her requirement and was let out to one Shri Choubey. Merely saying that the rooms were not suitable will not help the non -applicant to prove her bonafide and genuine requirement.

(2.) The burden to prove so was on the landlady. It was for her to establish that she is seeking eviction of the tenant in good faith and that she requires the premises for her own occupation and further that the premises already in her occupation do not meet her requirements. Then only she is entitled to evict the tenant. To establish the insufficiency of the accommodation in her occupation and further bonafide need of two more rooms, after letting out similar rooms vacated by Santosh Sharma to the other tenant Shri Choubey, no material witness was examined by her to prove bonafide need except Kailash chand Chourasia (A.W.l), who is an interested person. Though Kailash Chand Chourasia(A.W.l) has deposed that 15 rooms are required for the family members of the non -applicant landlady, but this is not pleaded either in the original application or in the amended application. The size of the rooms is also not shown. But from the own admissions of the non - applicant in her amended pleadings that she is in possession of 11 rooms, though earlier according to Kailash Chand Chourasia she was in possession of 8 rooms. Leaving aside the two non - residential rooms vacated by the lady doctor, 5 rooms came into possession of the landlady during the pendency of the application. Had her requirement been bonafide and sincere, she could not have let out two rooms to the new tenant Shri. Choubey.