SUSHILA DEVI D/O RAMSINGH Vs. MAHARAJSINGH DEVISINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "while the Rent Control Legislation has given a number of facilities to the tenants it should not be construed so as to destroy the limited relief which it seeks to give the landlord also. For instance one of the grounds for eviction which is contained in almost all the Rent Control Acts in the country is the question of landlord's bona fide personal necessity. The concept of bona fide necessity should be meaningfully construed so as to make the relief granted to the landlord real and practical".

(2.) THE plaintiff-landlord, whose suit for ejectment of the defendant-tenant from the suit premises, residential one, was decreed by the trial Court but dismissed by the lower Appellate Court, has come up in appeal.

(3.) A brief resume of the relevant facts: The landlord-plaintiff-appellant is admittedly a bedini (country prostitute) by caste and profession. She owns the suit house having purchased the same from one Ramsingh under the registered deed of sale dated 21-12-1974. The tenant-defendant-respondent has been holding the house at a monthly rent of Rs. 22/- since 3-5-1973 from the ex-landlord under a written rent note. The case of the plaintiff is that she bona fide needs the suit accommodation for the residence of herself and her two sons, namely, Pooransingh and Anoopsingh, both studying in College and Higher Secondary School respectively. It was also alleged that she wanted to reconstruct the house which could not be done unless the premises were vacated. The defendant in his written statement denied the case of the plaintiff and' submitted that the plaintiff was in possession of other alternative accommodation, hence her need was not genuine and that the requirement of illegitimate sons could not be considered.