The landlord's requirement of the premises for his own occupation must be reasonable and bona fide. The mere wish or convenience or whim or fancy of the landlord will not be enough to establish his requirement of the premises. However, the statute does not say that it must be an absolute need or absolute requirement in the sense that the landlord will not have any accommodation of any description and that he must actually be in the streets before he can demand his own house for occupation.

Headnote:
RENT ACT - SECTION 13(1)(G) - SECTION 13(2) - SECTION 15-A - LEAVE AND LICENCE AGREEMENT - REQUIREMENT OF THE LANDLORD - COMPARATIVE HARDSHIP - The landlord's requirement of the premises for his own occupation must be reasonable and bona fide. The mere wish or convenience or whim or fancy of the landlord will not be enough to establish his requirement of the premises. However, the statute does not say that it must be an absolute need or absolute requirement in the sense that the landlord will not have any accommodation of any description and that he must actually be in the streets before he can demand his own house for occupation. The landlord's requirement may be considered reasonable and bona fide even if he has some other accommodation available to him, provided that such accommodation is precarious or insecure or gratutious or has an obvious uncertainty and equal absence of permanency.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, an affluent and educated woman, purchased a flat in 1963 and rented it out to the defendant company in 1970 under a leave and licence agreement for a period of three years. The plaintiff went abroad for studies and returned in 1973. She found that the defendant company was still in occupation of the flat and refused to vacate it. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the flat on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement. The trial court and the appellate court both decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plaintiff's requirement of the flat was reasonable and bona fide. The court considered the plaintiff's education, affluence, and family background, as well as the fact that she had no other alternate accommodation available to her. The court also found that the defendant company had adequate accommodation in another flat and that it would not suffer any hardship if it was evicted from the suit flat.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff's requirement of the flat was reasonable and bona fide. 2. Whether the defendant company would suffer greater hardship if it was evicted from the suit flat.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's requirement of the flat was reasonable and bona fide because: * She had no other alternate accommodation available to her. * The defendant company had adequate accommodation in another flat. * The defendant company would not suffer any hardship if it was evicted from the suit flat.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendant company's petition and upheld the decree of the appellate court.

JUDGMENT - V.S. KOTWAL, J.:---Affluence, education and culture may be cherished desires of many, though there may be only a handful of persons who are bestowed with this fortune. The plaintiff who no doubt falls in that category has to face quite a bitter criticism on that count as this fortune is sought to be looked upon as her sin. The further characteristic of this proceeding is that an individual is pitted against a Company when the premises are occupied by the employees of the Company though, originally under a leave and licence agreement as also though the furnishing of quarters is not a term of employment. The other side of this coin is apparent that the plaintiff who owns the premises has to rest content by being away from the premises and invite sympathies from her relations for securing at least temporary accommodation.

2. Quite an affluent family consisting of the parents, three daughters and a son resided in a family house "Anand Bhavan" located in Babulnath area of this metropolitan city. This was claimed to be the family house as being the Joint Hindu Family property which was originally purchased by the plaintiff's grandfather. Those are quite spacious premises. However, there appears to have been either a formal partition or some family arrangement with the result that the plaintiff's father and her two uncles got the share therein with the further result that after the death of her father in the year 1965, that share has been devolved on the other members of the family including the plaintiff though it is claimed that the plaintiff's share is extremely marginal. It is not necessary to have a computation of the respective shares of the parties and the Court below has unduly magnified that aspect indulging in the process of mathematical calculations.

3. The plaintiff purchased the suit flat in the year 1963, though she was residing in Anand Bhavan. The suit flat is located on the 9th floor in Meher Apartments at Anstey Road, Cumbala Hills, Bombay. For some time the plaintiff went abroad to pursue her higher studies. It is on July 6, 1970, that the defendant Company was inducted in the suit premises purely on temporary basis under a leave and licence agreement when the amount of licence fee or compensation was fixed at Rs. 850/- per month with an additional amount of Rs. 450/- for furniture and fixtures. This was meant to be utilised by the employees of the Company which is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act with its registered office at Nariman Point, Bombay. It may be observed at this juncture itself that the evidence indicates in no unmistakable terms that this flat was being utilised by the employees, though there was no term of employment for providing residential quarters and further most of the time the flat was occupied by one employee alone without his family members residing therein. Further, the Company also has another spacious flat located in Breach Candy area which has not less than three bedrooms with attached bath and some portion thereof is being utilised as transit residence for the officers while the remainder is for the regular residence of some other officers. Therein also it appears that the officers have been staying all alone. It is further worth nothing at this juncture that the tenure was fixed for three years as the plaintiff had expectations of getting married soon and an equal expectation to come back from the States so that she could have shelter for residence in this city as she would be settling down in Bombay. The simple significant feature which is quite eloquent, is to the effect that this expectation was not merely her wishful thinking but did materialise and equally synchronised, as she did come back from the United States in August 1973, when the dire necessity to get the flat confronted her. In between, for a couple of years from 1956 to 1968, she had been to the States for her studies, she got married in the year 1970, and joined her husband in the United States

Click Here to Read the rest of this document