BRAHAMANAND Vs. SHRIBALLABH SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE need of the respondent-Shriballabh Shrivastava, a retired Army Subedar, was found to be genuine. A petition preferred in terms of Chapter IIIA of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 has been allowed. It is against the above decision the present petition has been preferred.

(2.) THE Court below has come to the conclusion that the respondent is a retired Army Personnel and he could file a petition under section 23-A of the 1961 Act. Retired Government servant falls under the category of landlord as contemplated by section 23-J of the Act.

(3.) THE genuineness of the need is to be seen and this need is never static. It varies from person to person, place to place and from profession to profession. The meaning to be given to the term need or requirement should neither be artificially extended nor its language be unduly restricted as such a course would defeat the very purpose of the Act. At the same time the proposition that the landlord is the sole arbitrator of his need is not be accepted as the only view on the matter. There is no doubt that the subjective choice exercised in a reasonable manner by the landlord should normally be respected by the Court. Where the need for additional accommodation is proved the Court is not to dictate the landlord to continue in the same premises. See : Precision Steel and Engineers v. Prem Deya, AIR 1982 SC 1518