Proof for bonafide requirement of landlord’s occupation.

The landlady is the petitioner before me. She applied for eviction on the ground that she required her only premises, No. 68, Linghi Chetty Street, Madras, both for residential and non-residential purposes. The need for residential purposes is purely personal to her and the need for non-residential purposes is for the purpose of her son, who is carrying on a Chemists and Druggists shop at Tirukazhikundram, to open up a branch here at Madras in the suit premises. The premises in question is admittedly a premises which is being used both for residential and nonresidential purposes. In fact, the respondent himself admits that the premises is being used for residential purposes as well as that he Is carrying on a business therein. The petitioner examined herself and her son. The petitioner would state that she requires this premises for her own use, but she would not categorically state that the premises is also required for non-residential purposes for her son. But the son who went into the box as P.W. 2 would state that he intends setting up a branch of his Chemists and Druggists shop at Madras. The respondent-tenant objected to this petition on two grounds, one that the requirement is not bona fide, and secondly, the petition is motivated because the landlady was from time to time increasing the rent and, since the tenant failed to respond to a call for a further increase in rent this petition has been filed.

The learned Rent Controller, who went into the question, held on the question of bona fides that the claim of the petitioner is not bona fide. He mainly rested his conclusions on the demands for increased rent made in the year 1958 and presumed that the intention of the landlady in instituting this action can also be presumed to be for purposes of obtaining an increased rent. The appellate authority again rested its conclusions on a comparison of Exhibits R-3 and R-4, which were the notices exchanged between the parties in connection with the increase of rent. The appellate authority is also of the opinion that Exhibit R-3 was issued only with the ulterior object of increasing the rent. The appellate authority continues to observe the moment that object was fulfilled, the petitioner kept quiet. She has resumed her attack again in the present petition because a few years have elapsed and she felt that she would be entitled to a further increase in rent.

The same contentions are pressed before me by Mr. Srinivasa Iyer, on behalf of the tenant. Mr. Srinivasa Iyer urges that the petition is not only falling short of bona fides on the part of the petitioner, but is ex facie mala fide because it is only a ruse or an instrument to secure a higher rent. He also adds that the son of the petitioner, who is admittedly carrying on a business at Tirukazhikundram, and not in the city, cannot under section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) ask for possession of the building from the tenant in the circumstances stated above. He also states that the requirement of the premises for purposes of the son’s business is a myth.

It has been repeatedly held by our Courts, the decisions to" which I would presently refer, that in case a landlord or landlady requires the premises of his or her own for his or her own occupation, the question of bona fides is alien for consideration and need not at all be gone into unless there are compelling circumstances to disbelieve the version of the landlord or the landlady, as the case may be, totally. I am not able to see such compelling reasons in this case so as to brush aside the request of the landlady for her only house in the city for her own residence. The question of bona fides no doubt is a subjective element. But even in finding out the truth of such a subjective element, we could safely sift the evidence on record to find out whether it is a totally mala fide claim on the part of the petitioner concerned. Here, the petitioner is a lady aged