Syed Yakub Ali vs Addl. Collector and Others

Palnitkar, C.J.—This is a petition for the issue of a writ; of Certiorari against the order of the appellate authority upholding the order of the Rent Controller. The short point for decision is whether under R. 8 (e) of the Rent Control Order, the Respondent has made out a reasonable ground for evicting the Petitioner, the tenant. After perusing the orders of the two lower tribunals, we are not satisfied on this point. The Rent Controller does not seem to have devoted his mind and attention to the facts of the case and allegations made by both the sides which may go to determine the question. While deciding the question of "reasonableness", the Rent Controller ought to have taken into consideration every circumstance that might affect the interests of the landlord or of the tenant in the premises, including the financial hardship which might be inflicted upon the tenant if the order for eviction was made. This has been held in - Williamson v. Pallanf (1924) 2 KB 173 (A). Another ruling on the point submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner is - Harte and Anr. v. Frampton (1948) 1 KB 73 (B), in which it has been held that in considering the question of the relative hardship involved to a landlord and a tenant by the making or refusal to make an order for possession, the Court should take into account the hardship to all who may be affected by the grant or refusal of an order for possession. The Court should weigh such hardship with due regard to the needs of both the tenant and the landlord. We do not find any such discussion in the orders of the two lower tribunals.

The learned Advocate for the Respondent argues that the landlord is a lawyer who had to discontinue his profession on account of his suffering from paralysis. He states that the malgis (shops) in question are ancestral property in which the brothers of Respondent 2 are also sharers and that their needs also have got to be looked to. He states that because Respondent 2 is not able to practise his profession as lawyer, he wishes to establish some business and increase his income which has been reduced due to cessation of practice.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner contends that both the lower Courts have come to the conclusion that it has not been made clear as to what business the Respondent wishes to start in the malgis. The vague statement that he will open a hotel there should not be given much weight because he has also stated that if permission for opening a hotel be not granted, he may think of doing some other business. The learned. Advocate for the Petitioner also contends that the Petitioner has a furniture shop, which he is running in the premises for. the last twenty years and that he will suffer heavy loss if he is made to vacate the ''malgis''. We, therefore, remand the case and direct the Rent Controller to take into view the alleged hardships of the landlord and of the tenant and come to a conclusion as to whether the landlord has made out reasonable ground for the eviction of the tenant. The orders under consideration are quashed and the case is remanded as above.

Costs will abide the result.

A. Srinivaschari, J.

I agree.