RAMBIR SINGH Vs. ASHA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred against concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below. The Courts below have concluded: that the respondent-plaintiff landlady does require the premises bona fide for her occupation as her residence. A finding has also been recorded that tenant has sublet the premises and as was liable to eviction on that ground also. It is these findings which are sought to be assailed in this Court.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the judgment given by the first appellate Court is brief and it does not deal with the evidence which was brought on record. No doubt, the appeal Court should have dealt with the matter at some length but this would be no reason to set aside the judgment. It is precisely for this reason, I have gone through the evidence on the record.

(3.) AS to what constitute bona fide need, the position of law is well settled. It is settled law that the Courts are not to substitute its own view with regard to the need of the landlord. Reasonable view to be taken is that if the need of the landlord is genuine then the Courts would not superimpose its own opinion with a view to determine the reasonable need of the landlord. 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 exercise in a reasonable manner by the landlord should normally be respected by the Court. Where the need for accommodation is proved the Court is not to dictate the landlord to continue in the same premises.