1967 (4) TMI 208

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e consisting of 10 partners, composed of three families. The allegation in the plaint was that the tenant had sublet the premises and Therefore, was liable to ejectment under Section 13(b). The second ground put forward was that the partners of the firm were under orders of eviction from the premises, which they were occupying and consequently, they required the premises in question for their occupation. both the Courts found against the petitioner on both the points and hence this revision under Section 35 of the Act. (2) The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the respondent sublet or assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises, thereby rendering himself liable to be evicted under Section 13....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e other hand, found that the number of members arrived at by the trial Court was incorrect and after referring to the evidence let in this behalf arrived at the total number of family members at 31. Having arrived at that figure, it agreed with the conclusion of the trial Court that the 7 flats were sufficient for the accommodation of the petitioner's families, and consequently, they were not entitled to an order ejecting the respondent from the premises in question. (4) It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me that in such matters, it is the landlord who is the final arbiter as to what exactly his requirements are and the Courts cannot convert themselves into the position of the landlord and then ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or. The acceptance of a contention like the one put forward before will make a mockery of the protection given to a tenant under the provisions of the Act. A rich and wealthy landlord with a small family, may claim that he bona fide wants to occupy, a huge mansion of his in the occupation of several tenants, though he is already in occupation of a premises, reasonably adequate and suitable for him and his family. If the contention of the learned counsel is to be accepted, the Courts will have no option but to order the eviction of the tenants. I am of the view that such an extravagant claim has only to be stated to be rejected. In the context of scarcity of accommodation, the Act has been passed to prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants ....