The requirement of the suit premises for the business of the son by the respondent who is not dependent upon her, cannot be regarded as the requirement of the respondent under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act.

Headnote:
BOMBAY RENT ACT - SECTION 13(1)(G) - REQUIREMENT OF PREMISES BY LANDLORD FOR OCCUPATION BY HIMSELF OR BY ANY PERSON FOR WHOSE BENEFIT THE PREMISES ARE HELD - INTERPRETATION - REQUIREMENT BY LANDLORD FOR OCCUPATION BY MEMBERS OF FAMILY OR DEPENDENTS - REQUIREMENT BY LANDLORD FOR OCCUPATION BY SON WHO IS NOT DEPENDENT ON HIM - WHETHER COVERED BY SECTION 13(1)(G).
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a landlady, filed a suit for possession of the suit premises from the petitioners, her tenants, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The respondent's husband had bequeathed the suit premises to her by a Will. The respondent's son, Ramanlal, was running a business in one of the rooms in the suit premises. The respondent claimed that the suit premises were required for the expanding business of Ramanlal. The petitioners resisted the suit, denying the reasonable and bona fide character of the requirement of the respondent. The trial court dismissed the respondent's suit, holding that she had failed to prove that there was a bona fide or reasonable requirement of the suit premises for her own use and occupation. The respondent appealed to the Appellate Judge, who partly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for possession of a part of the premises. The petitioners challenged the order of the Appellate Judge by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the requirement of the suit premises for the business of the son by the respondent who is not dependent upon her, cannot be regarded as the requirement of the respondent under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. The court also held that the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlady has to be deposed to by the landlady herself and admittedly in this case the landlady has neither stepped into the witness box nor has got herself examined on commission. This also, according to the court, is a fatal defect in the case of the respondent.
Issues: 1. Whether the requirement of the suit premises for the business of the son by the respondent who is not dependent upon her, can be regarded as the requirement of the respondent under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act? 2. Whether the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlady has to be deposed to by the landlady herself?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The requirement mentioned in section 13(1)(g) must be the requirement by the landlord and not the requirement by somebody also. 2. The words "for occupation by himself" do not restrict the proposed occupation to the occupation of landlord alone but may include the occupation by members of his family. 3. When there is a dependent of the landlord the requirement for his occupation may be the requirement by the landlord. 4. In a given case members of the family of the landlord may not be joint in residence but the condition of the requirement for occupation by himself is satisfied if the members are joint in estate. 5. In a given case the landlord may be dependent upon a person for whose use and occupation the premises are sought to be recovered. In such a case the condition in section 13(1)(g) can be said to be satisfied if it could be shown that it was necessary for the landlord that the other person should occupy the premises. Implicit in this proposition is the case of an old person requiring the presence of some person in or near the premise which is occupied. 6. Even if emotionally the landlord feels that a relation of his, such as his daughter or son-in-law, should stay with him, it can be regarded as the requirement by the landlord of the premises for occupation by himself. 7. In case of non-residential premises if the landlords interest are shown to be linked with the occupation of those premises by someone, for whom he is seeking the possession of the suit premises such as a partner, then it can be said that the requirement of the landlord for occupation by himself is established within the meaning of section 13(1)(g). 8. If there is a moral or legal obligation on the landlord to provide accommodation to a particular person than the requirement by the landlord for occupation of that person may squarely fall under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed. The decree passed by the Appellate Judge was set aside and the decree passed by the trial court was restored.

JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---A question of law which has become interesting on the peculiar facts of this case has been raised in this position. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings initiated by the respondent in this petition under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act."). The respondent is the landlady of a building bearing House No. 850 and situated at Budhwar Peth at Pune. The petitioners are the tenants of two rooms bearing block Nos. 2 and 3 which were subsequently amalgamated. Block No. 2 was taken on lease in the year 1933 and Block No. 3 was taken on lease in the year 1943. The first petitioner is a partnership firm of which the other petitioners are the partners.

2. The building was originally owned by the husband of the respondent who during his lifetime on 31st of January, 1944 executed a Will bequeathing the house in which the premises tenanted by the petitioners. (hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises") are situated in favour of the respondent. This was one only of the other proportions which were bequeathed by the respondents husband to the respondent. In the year 1949 the respondents husband died and, therefore, the respondent became the full owner of the property.

3. At this stage it may be mentioned that apart from the widow-respondent Lilachand the respondents husband left behind him two sons and two daughters. Two daughters are married and are not in the picture as far as this litigation is concerned. Similarly, one son also does not figure in this litigation. The other son called Ramanlal, who was 10 years old at the time when the respondents husband executed the Will, is the central figure in this litigation.

4. The respondent filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 3146 of 1974 against the petitioners for possession of the suit premises on various grounds. It is unnecessary to refer to the grounds other than the one which ultimately prevailed with the final Court of facts namely, the appeal Court, below, that is what is mentioned as reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the landlord for his own use and occupation as is mentioned in section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. It was the case of the respondent as set out in the plaint and as deposed to by Ramanlal, her son, in the Court of first instance that the suit premises were required for the expanding business of Ramanlal who had in his possession small premises regarded as insufficient by him for the expanding business.

5. The petitioners resisted the suit by denying the reasonable and the bona fide character of the requirement of the respondent. It was also contended by them that if a decree for possession were passed greater hardship would be ceased to them than the hardship that would be caused to the respondent if a decree for possession were refused.

6. The learned trial Judge by his judgment and order dated 16th of November, 1976 dismissed the respondents suit for possession holding that the respondent has failed to prove that there was on her part bona fide or reasonable requirement of the suit premises for her own use and occupation. While coming to this conclusion the learned Judge took into consideration the accommodation that was available to Ramanlal for his business. The learned trial Judge also hold that greater hardship would be caused to the petitioners if a decree for possession were passed.

7. This order of the learned trial Judge was challenged by the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1977 which was heard and partly allowed by the learned 2nd Extra Joint Judge of Pune by his judgment and order dated 30th of April, 1979. It had been contended before the learned Appellate Judge that the requirement of the suit premises for the expanding business of Ramanlal was not tantamount to the requirement of the same by the respondent who is the landlady o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document