Bona fide landlord need and comparative hardship upheld; eviction decree restored on practical assessment of facts.

A landlord's bona fide requirement under rent control law depends on a present, sincere and genuine need, assessed on a practical review of the facts rather than earlier pleading imperfections alone. The Court accepted the landlady's need to shift for medical treatment and family use, and held that the permitted amendment of pleadings had to be considered on its merits with the supporting evidence. It also upheld the findings that comparative hardship favoured the landlord and that partial eviction was not a workable solution on the record. The eviction decree was restored, with limited time granted to the tenant to vacate on undertaking and compliance with rent obligations.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the landlord established a bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for her own occupation and use of family members; (ii) whether the findings on comparative hardship and refusal of partial eviction called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the landlord established a bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for her own occupation and use of family members.

Analysis: Bona fide requirement under rent control law requires a present, sincere and genuine need and not a mere pretext for eviction. The Court held that the landlady's need to shift to Bangalore for medical treatment, supported by medical material, was a real and practical necessity. The amended pleading, which brought on record the changed circumstances and clarified the family requirement, was validly permitted, and once allowed, the amended case had to be considered on that basis. The Court rejected the view that the earlier inaccuracies in pleading by themselves destroyed the genuineness of the requirement, especially when evidence on the relevant facts had been received and the need was not shown to be whimsical or fanciful.

Conclusion: The landlord's requirement was bona fide and was proved on the record.

Issue (ii): Whether the findings on comparative hardship and refusal of partial eviction called for interference.

Analysis: The Trial Court's conclusions on comparative hardship and the impracticability of partial eviction were based on a proper evaluation of the accommodation, family strength and surrounding circumstances. The High Court had not reversed those findings on any sustainable basis. The Court held that a realistic and objective approach was required and that the tenant's continued occupation could not be preferred merely because the landlord had earlier pleaded some facts imperfectly. On the record, the hardship lay more on the landlord's side and partial eviction was not a workable solution.

Conclusion: The findings on comparative hardship and non-feasibility of partial eviction were upheld in favour of the landlord.

Final Conclusion: The eviction decree was restored with limited time granted to the tenant to vacate on undertaking and compliance with rent obligations.

Ratio Decidendi: A landlord's bona fide requirement is to be judged as a real and present need on a practical assessment of the facts, and once amendment of pleadings is permitted, the case must be decided on the amended pleadings and supporting evidence, not on earlier imperfections alone.

---