The court emphasized the importance of establishing bonafide need for own occupation in eviction cases and upheld the landlord's claim based on evidence of intention to return to Kerala and occupy the house.

1. The 'tenant' (not one belonging to the socially weak section, but a fortunately high placed officer of the Life Insurance Corporation) is the Revision Petitioner. All the authorities below repelled his contentions when he questioned the bona fide need of own occupation put forward by the landlord as a ground of eviction. Whether the decision of the three authorities below should be interfered with in the restricted jurisdiction of a revision under S.115 C P.C., is the question which arises for consideration.

2. A few skeletal facts may be recapitulated to appreciate the contentions of the Revision Petitioner.

3. The building situate in the city of Calicut is owned by Smt. Swarnalatha. Her husband is Rajagopalan, who had been gainfully employed from 1965 onwards in Nigeria as a Senior Agriculturist, in a project financed by the World Bank. Rajagopalan's wife belongs to Tellicherry. She was born in Malacca. Her parents are now in Singapore.

4. The couple did not occupy the building immediately, as they were away in Nigeria. It had been given on rent to various persons. Lastly, on 1-5-1975, it was given to the Revision Petitioner.

5. The project in Nigeria was expected to be completed in 1979. Anticipating the event and taking into consideration the necessity to return home, Rajagopalan wrote a letter in November 1978, to the tenant seeking the surrender of the building. The tenant replied it on the 13th of March, 1979. Therein, the tenant expressed his regret for the delay in sending the reply; and expressed the hope that Rajagopalan and his family were in good health. In reply to the demand for the building, he stated:

"I am trying to get a house, but, you know it is very difficult to get a house in Calicut now a days. Anyhow as soon as I get a house I will let you know the exact month, I can hand over your house to Sri Unniettan or Sri Devadas."

(Devadas is the younger brother of Rajagopalan and Unniettan is the father-in-law of Devadas.) The promise to surrender the building was, however, honoured only in its breach. Understandably enough, this caused strain in the relationship between the parties.

6. A lawyer's notice Ext. A3 dated 29-1-1980 was sent on behalf of the landlord. The claim of bonafide requirement of the house was specifically referred to therein. That was replied to by Ext. P4 letter from the lawyer of the tenant. The material statements relevant to this point therein are contained in Para.7 to 10. They are extracted below:

7. The further allegation in your notice that the owner of the building Mr. K. Rajagopal wants to come down and settle in this house is not true and correct.

8. The allegation that his contract of employment is over and he wants to occupy the house in the occupation of my client cannot he true under the circumstances.

9. The bonafide requirement stated in your notice is mala fide.

10. My client is not now in a position to vacate the building, as there is no house available in the locality and this present house is highly desirous to my client to carry on his business and hence, he is not in a position to vacate the building."

(emphasis supplied)

It is fairly evident that the denial of the claim of the landlord, by the tenant, was without any specific or clear idea of the factual details. There was no specific denial about the termination of the contract of employment in Nigeria or about Rajagopalan's intention to return to Kerala and occupy the house. The emphasis was mostly on the inability of the tenant in getting at an alternate accommodation. It is difficult to understand the statement in Para.10 reading:

"this present house is highly desirous to my client to carry on his business When the project in Nigeria came to a close with only its evaluation remaining to be done, Rajagopalan was, under Ext. Al, given an extension of his contract, but restricted to one year from 6th of June, 1982. Thus on 1-6-1983 Rajagopalans were to return from Nigeria.

7. It was reasonably anticipating such an e