RAM BABU Vs. MANMOHAN SWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant Ram Babu is a tenant. The first appellate Court has gone against him. The brief facts for the purposes of disposal of this appeal be noticed as under.

(2.) A suit for eviction was filed under Section 12(1)(a), (f) and (m) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as the 1961 Act). The Court below has recorded the following findings:

(3.) THE question as to whether the premises are bona fide required by the landlord or not be examined first. The legal position is as under: "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 should 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 to 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. The term bona fide represents something more than a desire or wish to occupy. It quite clearly does not convey the idea of absolute necessity in the sense that there should be no other possible alternative for the landlord for meeting his requirement except by occupying his property. The Rent Control Legislation is primarily meant for protecting the tenants against the tactics of greedy and unscrupulous landlords who are taking advantage of the difficulties and helplessness of the tenants extract exorbitant rents from them. It does not appear to be designed to penalise the owners by disabling them from occupying their own property when they bona fide require it. There is adequate provision in the Act safeguarding against a possible abuse of the privilege or the right of eviction on their part.