JUDGMENT
T.S. Doabia, J.
1. The heirs of Babulal, tenant who were unsuccessful in both the Courts below have filed this second appeal. Both the Courts have gone against the tenant. The facts in brief are as under :
2. That, Manish Kumar, son of Late Shri Satish Chandra Sharma filed the suit under section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) of the M P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). So far as the ground under sub-section (a) is concerned this is no longer available, as upto date arrears of rent have been paid. The only question which is required to be examined in the appeal is the need projected by Manish Kumar.
3. In para 4 of the plaint it was clearly stated by him that the premises are required for his own residence and also for the residence of his mother Radha Bai and other member of the family. Manish Kumar did not appear in the witness box. However, his mother Radha Bai has entered the witness box as PW. 1. She projected the need as under :
4. According to her, her son Manish Kumar is 14 years of age. The premises in dispute were said to be required by her for her son and also for her two daughters. These daughters are younger to Manish. It was categorically stated by her that there is no accommodation available to Manish Kumar or his family in the city of Shivpuri. She stated that she is staying with her in-laws. The house is said to be owned by her father-in-law. As a case was sought to be projected that she has married the younger brother of her late husband and as a question was put to her in that regard, she denied and stated that her husband had no younger brother. She however, admitted that Manish Kumar keep on visiting her Maternal Grandmother, who is staying in Jaipur. She however reiterated that the house would be used by her son and by herself and by her two daughters. In the house, where she was staying the younger brother of her father-in-law was also staying. In that house, there were 8 rooms, one open courtyard, a bathroom and a latrine. The family of the father-in-law consisted of 4 members, father-in-law and four brothers. If the statement of the mother of Manish is taken as a whole then the inference which can be drawn is that she has been able to establish the need for the purpose of claim under section 12(1)(e) of the 1961 Act. The suggestion put to her that she has married or is about to marry with the younger brother of her husband has been vehemently denied. Her son the respondent, no doubt visits her Maternal Grandmother but this cannot be made a ground for holding that the premises are not required by him or his family members. The mother and his sister would definitely fall within the definition of the term ‘family’ as used in the Act.
The genuineness of the need is to be seen and this need is never static. It varies from person to person, place to place and from profession to profession. The meaning to be given to the term need or requirement should neither be artificially extended nor its language should be unduly restricted as such a course would defeat the very purpose of the Act. At the same time the proposition that the landlord is the sole arbitrator of his need is not to be accepted as the only view on the matter. There is no doubt that the subjective choice exercised in a reasonable manner by the landlord should normally be respected by the Court. Where the need for additional accommodation is proved the Court is not to dictate the landlord to continue in the same premises. The term bona fide represents something more than a desire or wish to occupy. It quite clearly does not convey the idea of absolute necessity in the sense that there should be no other possible alternative for the landlord for meeting his requirement except by occupying his property. The Rent Control Legislation is primarily meant for protecting the tenants against the tactics of greedy and unscrupulous landlords who are taking advantage of the difficulties and helplessness of the tenants extract exorbitant rents from them. It does not appear to be designed to penalise the owner by disabling them from occupying their own property when they bona fide require it. There is adequate provision in the Act safeguarding against a possible abuse of the privilege or the right of eviction on their part. In Mattu Lal v. Radhey Lal, 1974 Rent Control Reporter 441; it was pointed out that mere desire on the part of the landlord is not enough but there should be an element of need and the landlord must show that he genuinely required the accommodation. When the need can be said to be only a desire and when it is genuinely required, cannot be tested on the criteria of the absolute necessity. The meaning of bona fide requirement was considered in S.N. Datta v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad, 1984 (1) ARC 113, as follows :
“Mere desire or absolute need or necessity are both it has been held, erroneous approaches in this behalf, vide Janki Pd. v. IInd Additional District Judge, 1980 (UP) RCC 602. The word ‘bona fide’ mean genuinely, sincerely i.e., in good faith in contradiction to mala fide. A full bench of this Court construed this to mean to genuinely or ‘in good faith’ and conveying an idea of absence of any intent to deceive, vide Chandra Kumar Sah v. District Judge, Varanasi, 1976 RCR 274, AIR 1976 All. 328, 1977 ARC 142 (FB). It will not be bona fide requirement of the landlord if release is sought for an ulterior purpose or fanciful whim, vide Dr. Sita Ram Gandhi v. District Judge, Meerut, 1978 (2) All India RCJ 326; Smt. Kamla Ahuja v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut, 1981 ARC 371.”
9. Where the daughter-in-law was staying with her in-laws it was held that eviction can be sought as the daughter-in-law can insist that she is not supposed to stay with her in-laws. Sheonath Kapoor v. Xth Additional District Judge, Kanpur, (1996) 1 RCR 312.
10. The landlord was occupying a house of his relative. Relation between the landlord and his relation became strained and such a landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that he required premises for his own use. It was held that the landlord is entitled to seek eviction on the ground of personal necessity. This view was taken in the case of J.S. Sareon v. Amrit, AIR 1986 P&H 94.
It was found that the tenant was occupying the house belonging to his brother and the mother and the occupation of the landlord was not as a matter of right but as a licensee. It was held that in case landlord does not want to continue to remain with his mother as the relations have become strained then the requirement of the landlord to occupy his own house would be most bona fide and in the absence of any evidence to suggest to the contrary the landlord would be entitled to an order of eviction under the Rent Act. The landlord in possession of building not as owner but as a lessee can seek eviction. The question as to whether a landlord in possession of another residential building in the same urban area not in his own right but as a lessee can be debarred from seeking eviction of his tenant was raised before a full bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. Atma Devi, 1991 (9) Punjab Legal Reports and Statutes 316 and the Full Bench approved the view taken in the case of Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi, (1980) 2 Rent Control Journal 188. It was held that such a landlord can get an order of eviction against his tenant if the premises in his occupation is not sufficient or suitable for his needs.
11. The landlord was in occupation of premises which consisted of one room which was not sufficient for his requirement. The house was owned by the husband and wife. The house in which they were residing was not owned by them but belonged to the in-laws of one of the landlords. It was held that the landlord was entitled to seek eviction of the tenant because the premises under their occupation were not owned by them and in fact proceedings to evict them had also been taken. Mrs. Ranbir Kaur Bindra v. Sital Parkash Jain, (1990) 8 Punjab Legal Reports and Statutes 631, Krishan Pal v. Gurcharan Singh, (1989) 7 Punjab Legal Reports and Statutes 174.
The above would apply in this case.
In this case the landlord’s mother is staying with her in-laws. He has two sisters. The family need an accommodation for it. The need is genuine. In this view of the matter, this appeal is found to be without merit and is dismissed with costs. Costs Rs. 500/-.