JAMNADAS Vs. VISHNU BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment on the ground contained in S. 4 (g) of the Madhya Bharat Accommodation Control Act 23 of 1956. The trial Judge dismissed the suit and that has been confirmed by the Addl. District Judge (Shri P. V. Muzumdar).

(2.) APART from anything else, there is an (sic) difficulty in the way of the appellant who, as conceded by the learned counsel, resides in a house of which he is the owner. That house is situated in the city of Lashkar and the house from which the defendant is sought to be ejected is also situated in the same city. Clause (g) of section 4 runs thus:

(3.) SHRI Sapre maintains that the word 'such' indicates that if the residence in the occupation of the landlord is not sufficient for his needs, he is entitled to get a tenant ejected although he may be residing in another house of his own. If this construction was accepted it would render the protection, which the law aims to provide, negatory I would demonstrate it in this way. Supposing land -lord has four houses A B C D: He is residing in house A And brings a suit against the tenant occupying house B on the ground that he requires it for his own need. He gets ejectment on the interpretation put by Shri Sapre. Then he seeks ejectment of the tenant occupying house C and then again of the tenant in occupation of D. In this way, he can get all his houses vacated, and every time his plea would be that the accommodation was not sufficient for his needs and that he is the sole arbiter of his requirement. In my opinion such a construction would put the section out of harmony with the Act as a whole.