GANDA MAL Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 31, 1971, of the Sub -Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Jammu affirming the judgment dated August 6, 1971, of the Munsiff Jammu, decreeing the plaintiffs claim for ejectment of the appellant from a room on the plaintiffs shop situate in the City Chowk, Jammu, on the ground that the same is reasonably required by the respondent for his own occupa ­tion.

(2.) MR . Sehgal appearing for the appellant has raised three contentions namely, (1) that the courts below have not tried to determine the total requirement of the respondent, (2) that there is no evidence to show that the sons and daughters of the res ­pondents are economically dependent upon him and (3) that since the appellant carries on manufacturing business in the suit premises six months notice and not fifteen days notice as given by the respondent was required according to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) THERE is no substance in the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act. 1966. no doubt, gives protection to the tenants against arbitrary, and whimsical evictions but it does not cast any obligation on the landlords to sacrifice their ordinary comforts or standard of living. What is required to be seen in a case of the present nature is not the exact space or area of accommodation with the landlord but whether after striking a just balance between the comparative advantages and disadvantages to the landlord on the one hand and to the tenant to whom pro ­tection has been given on the other, it can be said that the landlord reasonably requires the suit accommodation. Reasonable require ­ment is a relative term and cannot be put in a straight jacket. It varies from landlord to landlord. What is a reasonable require ­ment for A may not be so for B and again what is not a reason ­able requirement for A may be a reasonable requirement for B. In judging the reasonableness of the requirement of a landlord the court has to take into account a variety of factors such as his social status, the standard of his living, his habits, his comforts, the state of his health, the number of his family members and the like. It would be useful in this connection to quote the following observations made by Chief Justice Dua (as his Lordship then was) in Shri Krishna Kumar and another V. Mrs. Vimla Saigal, 1969 R.C. R. 236: