SHANTI DEVI Vs. MAHIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Shanti Devi landlady purchased premises consisting of a room on 6.3.1975 which was occupied by Mahipal tenant. This room adjoined the house owned by her husband which consisted of two rooms, bath room, a kitchen and a court-yard. After purchase, she filed an application for the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. She pleaded that she was living with her husband and that accommodation was not sufficient for their family consisting of herself, her husband and five children out of whom four were school-going. Site-plan Exhibit A.W. 4/1 has been produced on the record. The petition was contested by the tenant. Both the Courts below dismissed the petition for ejectment. The learned Rent Controller was of the opinion that Smt. Shanti Devi was living in the house of her husband in her own right and not as a licensee and, therefore, concluded that her mala fide was borne out from the very beginning when she purchased the premises in dispute in her own name specially when she had no independent source of income and the purchase in the name of the wife appeared to be a clever design on the part of her husband to seek ejectment of the tenant. The Appellate Authority found that the ground of personal necessity under Act does not envisage a situation where the landlord wants to eject his tenant who is occupying the connected portion of the premises. The Appellate Authority further concluded that while the landlady's family consisting of seven members, was living in two rooms out of which one was a big room, a kitchen, bath rooms, a latrine and a court-yard; the tenant's family consisting of six members was living in one room only, therefore, it be inferred that the element of need by the landlord to occupy the premises in dispute was not satisfied. This is landlady's revision in this Court.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire record. I am of the view that this revision deserves to succeed. Site plan Exhibited A. W. 4/1 shows that the family of the landlady consisting of the seven members was in occupation of one room measuring 15' X 10' - 8', one small room measuring 8'X 8'. one room was divided by Pardah wall major portion of which was used as kitchen and the smaller portion as bath room and the latrin was in the courtyard. Just adjoining this portion as was the room in dispute having a common wall. For a family of seven members two big rooms and one small room cannot be said to be excess accommodation. If order of ejectment is passed, one big room can be used by the parents alongwith smaller children, the second room can be used by the three elder children and the third room can be used as a sitting cum-study room.

(3.) EVEN the Appellate Authority went wrong in law in comparing their need of the landlord with the need of the tenant. Under the Act, only the need of the landlord is to be seen and if his need is established, an order of ejectment has to be passed but in case it is not established, the petition has to be dismissed. No comparison is permissible that if tenant's family consisting of six members can live in one room, the landlady's family consisting of seven members must live in 1-1/2 rooms because one room is as big as the room which is in the occupation of the tenant and the other room is almost of half the area.