The landlord does not need to prove 'dire need' in seeking eviction under Section 11(17) if bonafide need for permanent residence is established.

1 The petitioner - landlord purchased a thatched building at Cochin, in the year 1964. The respondent - tenant was then is occupation of a portion of it. He defaulted payment of rent and the landlord filed an eviction petition in 1972. The tenant was directed to vacate under S.11(2)(b). There was an appeal (R. C. A. 18/76), and when that too was dismissed, he deposited the arrears and got the order of the Rent Control Court vacated under S.11(2)(c). The petitioner thereafter filed R. C. O. P. 235/76 under S.11(3) for eviction. (She filed a similar petition against the tenant occupying the other portion of the building and it is said that it has been allowed). Her, case was that she had been residing at Delhi with her children and husband, and that she was desirous of getting back to Cochin where she could start permanent residence after some remodelling of the building, and could also get the children educated at the Central School.

2 The tenant questioned the bonafides. He contended that the petitioner who was residing at Delhi for the past 15 years with her husband could have no bonafide and reasonable desire to come down to Cochin and live separately, when the husband continued to live at Delhi. It was also contended that he was in occupation of the building for 39 years and was therefore protected under S.11(17).

3 The Rent Control Court believed the version of the petitioner, examined as PW 1, and held that her requirement was bonafide. It disbelieved the tenant as regards the claim of continued occupation for 39 years, and held that there was nothing but his interested testimony for invoking S.11(17). Eviction was accordingly ordered. And on appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the order.

4 But in R. C. R. P. 147/73, the District Court took a different view and dismissed the R. C. O. P. The reasons stated were the following: --
(i) the tenant had claimed that he was in occupation for 39. years, and the landlord had not disputed it. The tenant was therefore entitled to the protection of S.11(17);
(ii) if the tenant was protected by S.11(17), the landlord could not get an order for eviction even for bonafide occupation unless dire need' was also made out;
(iii) 'dire need' had specifically been referred to in the R. C. O. P. itself and the petitioner was thus conscious that the tenant was entitled to rely on S.11(17); the authorities below had acted with material irregularity in discarding the tenant's evidence as to continued occupation from 1940;
(iv) the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority had also not 'properly appreciated' the attendant circumstances while considering the bonafides of the landlord's claim. It was not clear from the evidence that the other tenant had actually" vacated. No. case had been put forward that the petitioner's husband was about to retire and come back from Delhi. The need for educating the children at Cochin was not mentioned in the petition; the evidence was that one of the children was studying at Delhi at least for 5 years. The building in question was a thatched one and it was unlikely that the family would settle down in such a structure; the remodelling suggested was but an excuse. The filing of the earlier petition for eviction on grounds of arrears of rent was also something which cast a shadow on bonafides; the second petition was filed only when it was found that the earlier order was got vacated under S.11(2)(c).

5 I shall first deal with the question whether the District Court could have reversed the finding regarding bonafides in the manner done. The appellate authority had noticed that Chinnamma, the tenant occupying the remaining portion of the building, had already been ordered to be evicted. It was nobody's case that this was untrue. If that is so, it is difficult to agree with the District Court that the landlord should have, in order to fully establish her bonafides, further proved that vacant possession of that portion had already been obtained. And it is also n