Own occupation under rent control law can include running a cinema business, not just personal residence.

The phrase "for his own occupation" in Section 11(3) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 was construed broadly to cover occupation for the purpose for which the tenancy was created, including non-residential use such as running a cinema business. Reading Section 11(3) with Section 11(4) and the Act's definition of "building," the Court treated the statute as applying to both residential and non-residential tenancies. It also rejected the contention that the eviction orders were without jurisdiction or ultra vires, and held that the challenge to the Act itself was not open on the pleadings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the expression "for his own occupation" in Section 11(3) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 is confined to residential occupation, and whether the eviction orders made under that provision were without jurisdiction or ultra vires.

Analysis: The expression "occupation" was construed in the context of the Act as a whole. The definition of "building" extended to premises let for residential as well as non-residential purposes, showing that the Act was not confined to residential tenancies. Reading Section 11(3) together with Section 11(4), the words "occupation" and "himself occupy it" were held to refer to the actual use of the premises for the purpose for which the tenancy was created, and not merely to personal residence. The Court also held that the challenge to the Act itself was not open on the pleadings and rejected the contention that the impugned orders related only to the cinema house and not to the tenancy as a whole.

Conclusion: The words "for his own occupation" include occupation for the purpose of running a cinema business, not merely residence. The eviction orders were valid and within jurisdiction, and the suit failed.

---