SATYENDRA CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. MAHESH KAMAL BHOWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit was filed in 1971 by the Petitioner, inter alia, for getting khas possession of a room measuring 9"x24" under the occupation of the Defendant opposite party as a tenant. Eviction was prayed for by the Plaintiff because according to him the room was needed for his 'own use and purpose'. This was contested by the Defendant. The suit was, however, decreed, which decision was affirmed in appeal. The Defendant approached this Court in revision when the matter was remanded to the learned first appellate court inasmuch as learned Brother Das, J. who heard that revision found that there was "not even a single sentence in the entire judgment as to the satisfaction of the Court about the Plaintff's 'genuine need' for his no -residential accommodation and that the need was 'bona fide' to justify the Court to pass a decree for eviction on that ground", (That decision has since been reported in, (1982) J GLR 653). As there was no finding to that affect, it was contended before this Court that a direction, be given to decide this aspect afresh. This Court accepted the contention and the case was accordingly remanded. The learned Assistant District Judge by the Impugned judgment has come to the finding that the room is not bona fide required by the Plaintiff for the purpose of expanding his glass business, which was the case put up in evidence. The Plaintiff has felt aggrieved at this finding and has approached this Court in revision to assail the same.

(2.) There is no dispute at the bar that mere desire of the landlord In this regard in not enough inasmuch as what proviso (c) of Sec. 5(1) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Ace (for short, the Act) demands in this context is that the house is "bona fide required" by the landlord, Inter alia, "for has own occupation", It has been held by the Supreme Court in Mattual v/s. Radhelal, AIR 1974 SC 1593 , that the word 'required' signifies that there should be an element of need and the landlord must show the burden being upon him -that be genuinely requires the accommodation for his purpose. In this connection, I may cite with profit Modhurilata v/s. Gourpadda, (1985) 1 GLR 392, wherein it has been stated by this Court that the words "bona fide requires" connote landlord's genuine, pressing and honest need of the premises. It may, however, be pointed out that though the words of the proviso are that the house is required bona fide by the landlord "for has own occupation"., It is not disputed by Shri Bhattacharjee, in view of what has been stated in Sega Begum v/s. Abdul Ahad Khan, AIR 1973 SC 272, that the words "own occupation" would not exclude the use of the house for purpose of business. Further, the necessity is not required to be only of the landlord, the same could also be of the person who are living with him as members of the same family.

(3.) To find out whether the requirement is genuine, pressing and honest, there can be no denial that the Court has to take into consideration various objective factors including the sufficiency of the space already at the disposal of the Plaintiff, the ground put forward by him for seeking eviction of the tenant and the availability of other accommodation at the disposal of the landlord which could meet his requirement. In so far as the question of comparative hardship is concerned, it is conceded by Shir Bhattacharjee that the Act does not contemplate weighing of the hardship of the landlord and tenant to decide the fate of an eviction suit.