KAILASH CHANDRA Vs. VINOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16 -8 -1993 passed by Hon'ble Shri Justice A. R. Tiwari, in First Appeal No. 11 of 1989 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the VI Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in C.O.S. No. 89 -A of 1986.

(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the suit house No. 30, Bade Sarafa, Indore originally belonged to the joint family of deceased Tejpal and deceased Gulzarilal. A partition was effected on 25 -2 -1953 and the suit house fell to the share of Gulzarilal. The present respondents are the sons of late Gulzarilal and the appellant is the son of Tejpal. A suit for eviction was filed against the appellant by the respondents in respect of the portion occupied by the appellant, initially treating the appellant as a licensee but later on as a tenant. As such the fact that the respondents are the landlords and the appellant is a tenant was the common ground before the lower Court.

(3.) IN the light of the above let us look at the contentions raised by the appellant in this appeal. The first challenge to the judgment of the learned Single Judge is on the ground that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the availability of 11 rooms is insufficient for a family of 13 members, out of which eight are children. This point was also raised before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge after considering the evidence led by the parties in details as well as the omission to examine one Sharad Agarwal has held that it is proved that the family of the plaintiff is growing in size. The size of the family, three brothers, their wives and eight children, is quite large and cannot be accommodated in just five rooms on the second floor and four rooms on the third floor. Relying on an earlier judgment of this Court the learned Single Judge has also held that it will be wholly illegal and unreasonable for a tenant to expect from the landlord or the members of his family to squeeze themselves and to live uncomfortably than to seek the eviction. The learned Single Judge while confirming the decree of the lower Court on this ground has also taken into consideration the fact that the suit was filed in the year 1978 and since then the children have become adults and, therefore, it cannot be said that the family consists of only eight children and 3 couples. The Court has also taken into consideration the change in the living habits, wherein people require rooms for study, dining, drawing room and bed rooms separately. As such we find no such infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge on this point which may persuade us to interfere in the matter.