JUDGMENT :- This is a suit by the plaintiff for the recovery of possession of premises No. 26C Amherat Row, Calcutta and for decree for the sum of Rs. 705 alleged to be due in respect of arrears of rant from April 1947 to June 1948 and for mesne profits and costs.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of premise No. 26C Amherst Bow at the rent of Rs. 47 per month. A notice to quit was given on 26th May 1948 calling upon the defendant to vacate the premises by the end of June 1948. The plaintiff also pleads that be requires this house for his own occupation. He obtained permission from the Bent Controller on 17th December 1947. The suit was instituted on I9tfa July 1948.

3. The defendant filed his written statement. The default in the payment of rents is denied. The defendant also denies the validity of the notice to quit. The defendant denies that there is any bona fide requirement by the plaintiff.

4. In the written statement the defendant has gone further to say that the plaintiff owns and possesses many other propertied in Calcutta and does not require the premises in suit for his own occupation. The defendant has imputed a motive to the plaintiff for filing this suit by the plea in para. 7 of the written statement that the plaintiff wanted to increase the rent and because the defendant did not accept the proposal for increase of rent set out in that paragraph the plaintiff wants to turn out and evict the defendant.

5. Mr. Dilip Kumar Sen who appears for the defendant confined himself only to the issue to bona fide requirement. The only issue he raises is "Does the plaintiff bona fide require the house for his own occupation" ?

6. Mr. Sen does not raise any issue with regard to the notice to quit. Nor does Mr. S. Dutt who appears for the plaintiff raise any with regard to the arrears of rent. The position with regard to the arrears of rent is this that the defendant has gone on depositing all the rents with the Rent Controller up to the date when an order was made on an application under Ch 13A in this suit; since that order the payments are being made to the plaintiffs solicitors, Mr. Dutt admits that payments up to date have been made in this way. 7-11. The plaintiff has given evidence in this suit. [After going through the evidence of the plaintiff, his Lordship continued.

12. In the circumstances, the point for decision is does the plaintiff bona, fide require the house for his own occupation, within the meaning of proviso (F) of S. 11(1), Rent Control Act, 1948 ? On the facts I have no hesitation in holding that the plaintiff bond fide requires premises No. 260, Amherst Row for his own occupation.

13. In my opinion a landlord under the West Bengal Premises (Temporary Provision) Rent Control Act, 1948 is to satisfy the Court on three points, (1) that he "requires" the premises, (2) that such requirement is for his "own "occupation" and (3) that his requirement is "bona fide."

14. The word "require" was construed by Buckland, J. in Rekhab Chand v. DCruz 26 C. W. N. 499 : (AIR (10) 1923 Cal. 223), while dealing with a similar provision in the Calcutta Rent Act, 1920, and the construction that the learned Judge put upon the word "require" is this :

"The word in the Act is not desire but require. This in my opinion involves something more than a mere wish and it involves an element of need to some extent at least."

I respectfully follow the same meaning and construction of the word "require" in construing that word in the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948. Mere wish or convenience or whim or fancy of the landlord will not in my view be enough to show that the landlord "requires" the premises. The landlord must show certain circumstances or facts proving some need or some necessity for the landlord. At the same time the Statute does not say that it must be as absolute need or an absolute requirement in the sense that the landlord will not have any accommodatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document