Meaning of the expression of the requires additional accommodation for residential purposes.

Veeraswami, J.

1. On the ground that the respondent bona fide required a portion: of the premises No. 80/3, Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Madras, the petitioner who has been a tenant therein for about 10 years has been directed to be evicted and this order was confirmed in appeal. This petition is directed against the eviction The requirement of owner's occupation was rested on the basis that the petitioner's-son-in-law who is a practising medical man wants the portion for opening a clinic. It is common ground that the petitioner's only daughter is living with her in the other portions of the house and has grand-children by her. It is also common, ground that the son-in-law is living with her along with his wife and children. The Courts below were of the view that the words " his own occupation " in Section 7(3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, should be read in a liberal sense and that so read, the instant case would also fall within the ambit of those words. In this Revision the propriety of this view is canvassed by the tenant.

2. Clause (i) of Sub-section (3)(a) to Section 7 pertains to the ground of requirement of the premises for owner's occupation on which a tenant in a residential-building may be evicted therefrom provided the other conditions of the clause are satisfied. But this provision will have no direct application here because only a portion of the house is involved in this petition and to such a case the appropriate-provision is Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 7. That clause reads:

A landlord who is occupying a part of a building, whether residential or non-residential, may notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) apply to the Controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for the purposes of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be.

The question is what is the meaning to be given to the words " if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes." For this purpose cases decided with reference to the words " for his own occupation " in the earlier statutory provision referred to are relied on which are to the effect that the words do not mean one's own requirement literally, but should be construed in a liberal sense. So understood, Courts have taken the view that the requirement need not be personal to the owner of the premises but may be of a son, a daughter, or a daughter's son or a widowed daughter-in-law. Occasionally tests of dependency, blood relationship and the like have been applied to draw the line. But in a Bombay case it would appear the view was taken that in applying the words " his own occupation " it would be relevant to take into account the particular custom or usage or practice prevailing in a given community. But as I said the words in this petition to be considered are not " for his own occupation " but the words " if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes." It is contended for the petitioner that since the. son-in-law in this case had given evidence clearly asserting that he was not dependent on his mother-in-law except that he expected her to look after his children and that in such circumstances it cannot be said that merely because the son-in-law happened to be living with the petitioner that would justify her to say that she required additional accommodation for residential purposes or purposes of a business which she is carrying on. Prima facie there appears to be force in the contention, particularly when the language of Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 7 is literally read. But on a closer consideration I think I must reject the contention of the petitioner for a literal reading of the clause.

3. The policy of the Act in relation to eviction on ground of requirement for one's own occupation is indicated