Nand Kishore Sharma vs Prem Shankar Begowalla

Mahesh Grover, J.—The petitioner is the landlord who sought the eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of personal necessity. The demised premises is a shop and it was pleaded by the petitioner that he requires the same for his use and he intended to start a business therefrom. The respondent-tenant denied the need as expressed by the petitioner and stated that the petitioner and his brother Raj Kumar were owners in equal share and after death of Raj Kumar, his legal representatives were essential parties. It was pleaded that petitioner is joint owner of the demised premises. Tenancy, however, is admitted but it was clarified that after the death of Raj Kumar the rent note had been executed by the respondent in favour of the sons of Raj Kumar to whom the rent had been paid.

These facts pertaining to the brother of the petitioner and his death are however inconsequential considering the fact that there is no dispute about the tenancy and the petitioner being landlord. Learned Rent Controller accepted the plea whereas Appellate Court reversed the findings. The reason for doing so was the perception of the Appellate Authority that since in the petition the personal need expressed was for himself without any mention of the son, subsequently in the proceedings and in his testimony the mentioning of the need for the son as well, was construed to be beyond the pleadings and hence discarded.

There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the material on record.

The claim stated in the rent petition would indicate that the petitioner had expressed the need to set up his own business in the demised premises but in the testimony it was stated that he required premises for himself as also for his son. The appellate Court misconstrued these words to mean that the need for the son has not been expressed in the petition and thus, the evidence led subsequently could not be looked into.

I am of the view that the Appellate Court has committed a grave error in interpreting the testimony of the petitioner. Once the petitioner had stated that he needed the premises to set up his own business, inclusion of the name of the son would not in anyway change or alter the need as expressed in the petition. This Court would go a step further to say that even after the petitioner had stated in his petition that he required the premises for his own use but stated the need to be of his son in his testimony would not in any manner diminish the personal need of the landlord rather it would enhance it. The desire to set up his son in the business would automatically be a part of the need of the landlord himself who is a father as well. In any eventuality it was not even necessary for the Court to take recourse to such a logic as it was categorically stated by the petitioner in his testimony that premises are required for ''himself and his ''son'' when he states about himself, then it would be in conformity with the pleadings.

Having regard to the aforesaid when the need of the landlord petitioner was specific, appellate Court ought to have applied principles more beneficial to the petitioner as laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the following judgments and reiterated numerous times.

In Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord in bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.

In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, the Apex Court, in a detailed judgment, while dealing with the personal need of a landlord, analysed the concept of bona fide requirement and said that the requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict the tenant refers to a state of mind prevailing with the landlord and then it was observed that "the only way of peeping into the mind of the landlord is an exercise undertaken by the judge of facts by placing himself in the armchair of the landlord and the posing a question to himself-whether in the given facts, substantiated by the landlord, the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest? and if the answer be in positive, the need is bona fide.

In Atma S. Berar Vs. Mukhtiar Singh, it has been held as under:-

Landlord is the best judge of his residential requirements. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own.

Petition allowed.

Respondent is directed to be evicted from the premises in dispute.