RAMAN NAYAR Vs. KESAVAN EMBRANDIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question argued by Mr. Govinda Menon in this second appeal is that the finding of the learned District Judge that the plaintiff requires the land bona fide for his cultivation is wrong because it is based on a wrong interpretation of Clause (5) of Section 14, Malabar Tenancy Act. After listening to the learned Counsel on both sides I am of opinion that the contention of Mr. Govinda Menon should prevail and that the case should be sent back for a revised finding. Section 14 so far as it is material for the decision in the appeal runs thus: Section 14. - No suit for eviction of a cultivating verumpattamdar from his holding shall lie at the instance of his landlord except on the following grounds : Clause (5) that at the end of an agricultural year the landlord requires the holding bona fide for his own cultivation or for that of any member of his family or tarwad or tavazhi who has a proprietary and beneficial interest therein.

(2.) In construing this section it must be borne in mind that the object of the Malabar Tenancy Act is to confer a right of permanent occupancy on the tenant. It is with this object that the rule has been enunciated that no suit for eviction shall lie except on certain specified grounds. Therefore these exceptions must be strictly construed and the landlord who relies on a particular ground must satisfy the Court beyond reasonable doubt that that ground exists. Clause (5) has been enacted in the interests of the landlord to preserve to him the right to have the land for his own cultivation in cases where there is a real need or necessity for the landlord. The language used is "requires the holding bona fide." A mere desire on the part of the landlord, even if bona fide, to have the land for his own cultivation is not enough and in coming to a conclusion on the question of the land-lord's need being bona fide, the Court should in each case consider whether the circumstances are such that the land must be restored to the landlord for his own cultivation or cultivation by any member of the family or tarwad. The real test is the need of the landlord. In this connexion I may refer to the observations of Buckland J. in 26 CWN 499 (23) 10 AIR 1923 Cal 223 : 69 IC 963 : 26 CWN 499 Rekhabchand Doogar V/s. J.R. D Cruz. 1941 M/103 and 104, a decision on Section 11, Calcutta Rent Act. The said section so far as it is relevant for the present discussion runs thus: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, or the Contract Act, 1872, no order or decree for the recovery of possession shall be made so long as the tenant pays the rent to the full extent allowable by the Act and performs the conditions of the tenancy. Provided nothing in this section shall apply ... where the premises are bona fide required by the landlord either for purposes of building or re- building or for his own occupation or the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held.

(3.) The learned Judge observed thus: I do not think it is enough that a plaintiff in order to defeat a plea under the Calcutta Rent Act should merely say that he desires the premises bona fide for his occupation. The word in the Act is not "desires" but "requires." This in my opinion involves something more than a mere wish and it involves an element of need to some extent at least.