The landlord must prove her bonafide necessity for the premises and that she does not have reasonably suitable residential accommodation in order to evict a tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Control Act.

( 1 ) THE petitioner sued the appellant for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. The Controller was not satisfied and he dismissed the petition. In appeal the Tribunal reversed the Order and tenant appealed to the High Court where his appeal was accepted.) Paras 7 to 15 of the High Court Judgement are :-

( 2 ) IN this second appeal by the tenant before me, two main contentions are raised viz. (i) the evidence adduced by the landlady regarding her bonafide necessity to occupy the particular flat presently in the tenant s possession was contrary to her pleading and even otherwise the landlady had failed to prove such bonafide necessity, and (ii) that the landlady was already in occupation of reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The first contention requires a careful understanding of proviso (e) to 14 (1) of the Act. The proviso (e) to section 14 (1) are divisible into two parts viz. (i) those relating to the conduct of the tenant and (ii) those relating to the need of the landlord irrespective of the conduct of the tenant. Proviso (e) falls into the second class. As the conduct of the tenant is quite blameless, it is necessary for the landlord to prove fully the requirements of proviso (e) before he can succeed in evicting a tenant whose conduct has given no cause of action to the landlord. It is crucial that the requirement of the landlord for the premises should be bonafide or in good faith. According to Section 3 (22) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, a thing is deemed to be done in good faith, where it is in fact done honestly. Is the landlady acting honestly in demanding possession of the premises ? The lease of this flat to this tenant and of the adjoining flat to one Shri Mathur was given by the land lady in 1963. The pleading in para 1. 8 (a) of the eviction petition was that the premises were let to the respondent temporarily for a limited period of one year and the respondent had agreed to vacate the premises after one year but he failed to vacate the same. Had this pleading been true the landlady would have asked the tenant to vacate after the expiry of one year of the tenancy. There is no credible evidence to show that this was done. Even the other tenant Shri Mathur continued in occupation till 1966. The landlady had built the building and annexes consisting of flats only for the purpose of letting them out. She was thus aware of the ordinary law relating to tenancy. She could not be so-naive as to believe that she could let out both the flats for one year and could expect to get them back from the tenants without difficulty. Neither the Controller nor the Tribunal has even referred to the letting been for one year only. Obviously, both the courts considered the plea not worth consideration being totally unbelievable.

( 3 ) THE landlady and her husband in evidence stated that the reason for letting out the pre nises was that the financial condition of the landlady had deteriorated. About this, we have only the evidence of the landlady and her husband and of no one else. The Controller could not believe such evidence particularly because it was not shown to him that the landlady was an income tax payer. The Tribunal has, however, believed the evidence and also that the landlady was an income tax payer. Ordinarily, the finding of the Tribunal would be binding on me. But in the present case it is vitiated by the following reasons : - (i) the specific reason given by the Controller that the case made out by the land lady in her evidence was not stated by her either in the petition or in the replication was not at all considered by the Tribunal. After the land lady bad stated in the petition that the tenancy was for one year, the tenant denied that the tenancy was for one year. The land lady had an opportunity then to say in replication that alternatively the tenancy was given because the land lady needed money due to worsening of her financial condition This was not done. The argument