PADAM PARSHAD JAIN Vs. ATMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of the premises in dispute. He was employed as a Government servant in Delhi. He had earlier got the house in dispute vacated from some other tenants according to him for getting it re-built, and according to the respondent for his personal necessity. This controversy contres around the following statement made by the landlord in cross-examination :-

(2.) The learned Rent Controller after making an elaborate discussion of the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the landlord did in fact have a bona fide need. In coming to this conclusion, the learned Rent Controller relied upon Banke Ram V/s. Smt. Sarasti Devi, 1979 CurLJ 486; Shakuntla Devi and others V/s. Romesh Kumar and others,1980 1 RentLR 327 and Baga Begum and others V/s. Abdul Ahad Khan and others, 1979 1 RentLR 93. The last mentioned case has been decided by the Supreme Court of India. Therein it has been laid down that while considering the claim of a landlord petitioner whether he needed the premises in dispute bona fide for his personal use or not, the Court should try to distinguish between reasonable requirement for personal use and a mere desire or a wish to have the premises vacated. It was also observed therein that the distinction between desire and need should be kept in mind but the case should not be decided so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire. The landlord-petitioner had stated on oath that he wishes to settle down at Ambala Cantonment after his retirement from service. On this point he could do nothing more. The learned Appellate Authority has non-suited him mainly on the grounds that he had spent about 40 years in Delhi, his son was employed elsewhere, his two unmarried daughters were employed in Delhi who were unlikely to resign from service in order to live with him at Ambala Cantonment and that he had applied to the Delhi Development Authority for allotment of built up site.

(3.) Whether a person wishes to revert to his native place or not depends upon his own sweet will. The mere fact that his son is employed elsewhere or his daughters, though unmarried, are employed at different station, are no grounds to doubt the statement made by him on this point. These days young working girls do not necessarily need the protective umbrella of their parents. They can even serve at different places for taking out a living. As far as the making of an application by the landlord petitioner to the Delhi Development Authority for the allotment of a residential accommodation is concerned, that too could not have stood in his way because what is relevant for considering his bona fide need is the actual availability of residential accommodation to him in contra-distinction with its possible acquisition in the future. I am clearly of the view that in the instant case the learned Appellate Authority has given a finding against the landlord petitioner on insufficient, grounds. The learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that there were quite a large number of authorities for the proposition that the mere wish of the landlord cannot be respected. The first case cited by him is Smt. Satwant Kaur V/s. M/s. P.R. Industries,1980 1 RentLR 402. In this case relied upon is Kanwar Singh V/s. Maman Chand, 1980 1 RentLR 734. Therein the learned Judge was not satisfied about the statement made by the landlord petitioner because he had given no explanation for shifting from one place to the other. The third case relied upon was Shri Jiwan Dass V/s. Satish Kumari,1980 1 RentLR 718, but in that case the learned Judge appears to have been influenced by the ground that the landlord-petitioner was being looked after by her son at the place from where she indicated her intention to shift. It is settled law that when a landlord is occupying residential accommodation belonging to a relation of her, he/she for all intents and purposes lives therein at the sufferance of such a relation and he/she in the eyes of law cannot be deemed to possess such residential accommodation on his or her own account. The last case relied upon is Shri Rattan Chand Jain V/s. Shri Charan Singh, 1978 1 RentLR 589. Therein the learned Judge had only emphasised that the distinction between the element of need and that of desire should be kept in mind in each case and for that there cannot possibly be any quarrel with this proposition of law.