The term 'family' in Section 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII of 1950) should be given a broad and liberal meaning, and may include persons who are not related by blood or marriage but who are dependent on and living with the landlord.

Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EJECTMENT - REASONABLE AND BONA FIDE NECESSITY - COMPARATIVE HARDSHIP - PARTIAL EVICTION - RAJASTHAN PREMISES (CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION) ACT (NO. XVII OF 1950), SEC. 13(1)(H), 14(2).
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant-tenant from the rented house, claiming reasonable and bona fide necessity for his own use and occupation. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof on the issue of necessity. On appeal, the Additional Civil Judge reversed the finding and decreed the suit for ejectment, also awarding damages for use and occupation.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the finding of the Additional Civil Judge on the issue of reasonable and bona fide necessity was based on appreciation of evidence and could not be interfered with. However, the finding on the issue of comparative hardship was set aside, as the court erred in giving a narrow meaning to the term 'family' in Section 13(1)(h) of the Act. The court held that the plaintiff's brother's maternal grandson, who had been living with the plaintiff since childhood and was dependent on him, was a member of the plaintiff's family for the purpose of determining reasonable and bona fide necessity.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff-landlord has established reasonable and bona fide necessity for the rented house for his own use and occupation? 2. Whether the defendant-tenant would suffer greater hardship if evicted compared to the plaintiff if the eviction is not ordered?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the finding of the Additional Civil Judge on the issue of reasonable and bona fide necessity was based on appreciation of evidence and could not be interfered with. The court noted that the plaintiff had provided evidence of his need for the house for his own use and occupation, including the fact that his current accommodation was insufficient for his family, which included his brother's maternal grandson, who was considered a member of the family. 2. The court held that the finding of the Additional Civil Judge on the issue of comparative hardship was erroneous, as the court had given a narrow meaning to the term 'family' in Section 13(1)(h) of the Act. The court held that the plaintiff's brother's maternal grandson was a member of the plaintiff's family for the purpose of determining reasonable and bona fide necessity, and that the plaintiff would suffer greater hardship if evicted compared to the defendant if the eviction is not ordered.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, and remanded the case for determination of the question whether partial eviction from the house in suit would be sufficient to meet the plaintiff's requirement, as contemplated in the second paragraph of Section 14(2) of the Act.

JUDGMENT

1. - This is defendant-tenant's second appeal under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated May 2,1970 of the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur by which he set aside the judgment and decree dated November 4, 1967 of the Additional Munsif No. 1, Jodhpur City and decreed the suit for ejectment which was dismissed by the learned Additional Munsif.

2. A few facts may be noticed : The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for ejectment from the house which was rented out to the defendant-appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 34/-. It was stated by the plaintiff that the house in question is reasonably and bonafide required by him for use and occupation for himself and his family. It was also pleaded that the house, where he is living, belongs to his deceased brother Chhaganlal and that Smt. Kamala, the only daughter, of Chhaganlal has given him a notice to vacate it. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given to the defendant terminating his tenancy from the midnight of 6th and 7th May, 1966. The plaintiff has prayed that a decree against the defendant may be granted for his ejectment.

3. The defendant in his written statement, inter alia, denied the reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff and his family. Issue relating to reasonable and bonafide necessity was framed on August 24, 1966. Parties led evidence. The learned Additional Munsif after appreciating the evidence recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of issue No. 1 relating to reasonable and bonafide necessity. He also held that it has not been proved from the evidence that the plaintiff requires the suit house reasonably and bonafide for use and occupation for himself and his family. In view of the findings recorded by him, he dismissed suit for ejectment. An appeal was filed by the plaintiff and the learned Additional Civil Judge reversed the finding on the question of reasonble and bonafide necessity and decreed the suit for ejectment and also awarded damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 34/- per month from the date of the suit until eviction. The defendant filed this appeal challenging the decree for ejectment on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, this Court, by its order dated January 6, 1981, because of the amendment of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII of 1950) (for short 'the Act'), framed the following Additional issue under Order 41, Rule 25, CPC:

"1(A) Whether having regard to all the circumstances of the case hardship would be caused by passing a decree than by refusting to pass it?"
This issue was remitted for trial to the Additional Munsif No. 1, Jodhpur City. The learned Additional Munsif by his order dated April 21, 1981 has decided this issue against the plaintiff and held that the defendant would b6 put to greater hardship than the plaintiff if a decree for ejectment is passed in favour of the plaintiff. The plainliff has filed objections to this finding on May 16, 1981 praying that the aforesaid finding relating to comparative hardship may be set aside.

5. I have heard Mr. J.R. Tatia for the appellant and Mr. H.N. Calla for the respondent and have also considered the material on record.

6. It may be stated that on August 6, 1981, an application under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code supported by the affidavit of the respondent was filed. Along with that application the original adoption deed dated July 1, 1981, was filed. I propose to dispose of this application first. Para 5 of the application is as follows:

"5. That the respondent engaged Shri Har Nath Calla for arguing this appeal and he advised the respondent that when all the parties to adoption agree that Kailash already adopted son to respondent and who lives with the respondent since child hood and who after marriage lives with his wife and three children, m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1981 Supreme(Raj) 499

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTS.K.Mal Lodha, J.Abdul Hafiz Khan - AppellantVersusJethu Ram - RespondentS.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 236 of 1970.Decided On : 26-10-1981

The term 'family' in Section 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII of 1950) should be given a broad and liberal meaning, and may include persons who are not related by blood or marriage but who are dependent on and living with the landlord.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.K.Mal Lodha, J.
Abdul Hafiz Khan - Appellant
Versus
Jethu Ram - Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 236 of 1970.
Decided On : 26-10-1981