Kapoorchand vs Shanthabai Sindia

Shivaprakash, J.—The eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord u/s 21(1)(h) of the KRC Act, 1961 has been allowed by the trial Court. The premises in question is the ground floor of No. 67, Surveyor Street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. The respondent who is an elderly lady resides in the first floor of the said building. The petitioner-tenant is in occupation of the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.

It is the case of the respondent that she is in indifferent health and she desired than her younger sister who is a widow to reside in the ground floor of the building so that she could be of assistance to her. It is in evidence that the younger sister has got two daughters and two sons, out of which one daughter is married and living with her husband separately. The unmarried daughter and two sons, who are in their twenties, are residing with their mother.

The accommodation available to the landlady in the first floor is no doubt much more than what is required ordinarily for one person to reside. However, the landlady has deposed that throughout her life she has been accustomed to living alone and values privacy. In the circumstances she has stated in view of the fact that her sister has got 3 children residing with her, it is desirable from the point of view of her health and way of living that she should have a separate household. She has reiterated that the ground floor is required to accommodate her younger sister where she could have a separate dwelling unit and that such an arrangement would enable her sister to be of assistance to her which she very much requires.

Sri Lakshmipathi Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the accommodation available in the first floor is quite big, her sister and her children may as well live with the respondent-landlady. This submission of the learned Counsel overlooks the accustomed way of living of the landlady who values privacy and prefers to live alone without the relatives hanging around in the same household. Individual privacy is a psychological need - a quality of the mind, which is certainly a factor to be taken into consideration while adjudging the bonafide and reasonable requirement of the premises by the landlord.

The trial Court has considered the entire evidence and material on record and relying on the Decision of the Supreme Court in Phiroze Bamanji Desai Vs. Chandrakant N. Patel and Others, has held that the landlady has established the ground u/s 21(1)(h) of the Act. That was also a case where the landlady was living alone having spacious accommodation in the first floor. She wanted to accommodate her son in the ground floor of the building since she was not keeping good health and she desired that her son during the fag end of her life should reside close to her and be of assistance to her. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is nothing unusual in such a desire of the landlady more so when some persons are accustomed to living alone and does not feel comfortable if there were to be many persons in the house hold.

In the circumstances, I do not see any ground to disturb the finding of the trial Court.

Call next week to consider the question of granting time for the petitioner-tenant to vacate the premises, since the Counsel for the petitioner requests for time to receive instructions.

2nd August 1995

This is in continuation of the Final Order dated 24.7.1995, passed by this Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner says that the children of the petitioner are studying in Schools near about the petition schedule premises and therefore time may be granted for the petitioner to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises to the respondent-landlady till end of the current academic year i.e. 30.4.1996.

In view of the above submission, time is granted to the petitioner to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises to the respondent-landlady on or before 30.4.1996, subject to the following conditions :

a) The petitioner shall be regular in payment of monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.

b) If the petitioner were to commit two consecutive defaults in paying monthly rent it shall be deemed that no time has been granted for vacating the premises.

c) The petitioner shall not induct any 3rd party into the premises.

d) The petitioner shall give an undertaking to this Court in the form of an affidavit, stating that he would vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises to the respondent-landlady on or before the said date.

Affidavit in terms of the above, shall be filed, after serving a copy of the same on the Counsel acting for the respondent-landlady within four (4) weeks thereof. If the affidavit is not filed within 4 weeks, the eviction order shall become executable after the expiry of the 4 weeks period.

This Revision Petition is disposed off.