ORDER

This is one of the classic instances of the cases holding the law that "delay defeats justice", the landlord filed a suit in 1966 for eviction of the tenant for personal occupation and today after 31 years, we are disposing of the matter at the level of this Court. It is not necessary to detail all the circumstances leading to the filing of the petition. Suffice it to state that the landlord who was just to retire from private service having four unmarried grown-up daughters and one son aged 24 years had filed an application for eviction of the tenant under the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, the Act ). The application was filed on two grounds, namely, one she needs the premises for personal occupation and the tenant also has committed default in the payment of the rent for more than fix months. When a notice was issued by the landlady-appellant calling upon the respondents to vacate the premises on the above grounds, reply came with the allegation that he was not in arrears of the rents and the appellant is not in need of the premise. Thus, necessitated the respondent to file the suit for eviction. In the written statement, a defence was taken that the standard rent is much less than the contracted rent. As a consequence, the rent payable to the respondent was less. Therefore, he has not committed default in payment of the rent. Though an application under Section 11 for fixation of the standard rent was not filed, the determination in that behalf was made at Rs. 101/- per month. The Rent Controller allowed the petition. But, on appeal, the District Judge dismissed the appeal holding that the respondent needs the house for personal occupation and also the default was committed by him. On revision, the High Court reversed the order. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

2. The High Court proceeded on two premises, namely, that the landlady was not in need of the house since her husband has by then become too old and secondly it was held that the comparative hardship to the tenant was not taken into consideration and, therefore, the premises on which the appellate authority proceeded is wrong in law. The High Court came to the conclusion that under the contract, since the property tax was required to be paid by the tenant, the contract of monthly tenancy as well as the payment of property tax being a composite tenancy, there is no default in payment of the rent. Shri M.C. Bhandare, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, contends that the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law. He contends that bona fide recruitment requires to be considered at the time when the need arises and mere fact that he has become old at the time when the petition came up, it is not relevant ground. Though we find force in the contention, it need not be now decided due to long lapse of time of 31 years. Now, he is not in a position to set up any business. At the time when he filed the application, admittedly, he was 54 years of age by now he is 87 years. Under these circumstances, the need of the landlady for her husband to set up the business cannot be said to be subsisting. At that time, they had four unmarried daughters, obviously, he had to set up the business but now they have already been married and need, therefore, no longer subsists. It is further stated that his son who was 24 years of age is now going to retire in another four and a half years. Under these circumstances, as and when he retires from service and if he intends to set up the business, it is always open to make necessary application. On such suit being filed, necessarily the tenant requires to give place to the landlord to occupy the premises. The Rent Controller/civil Court, therefore, is directed that on filing the petition and satisfying that there is a need for his starting the business, the order of eviction requires to be passed.

3. With regard to the view taken by the High Court on the default of the payment