TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the '1972 Act') in which the appellant prayed that the portion occupied by respondent No.3 may be released on the ground of personal requirement as after retirement he wanted to occupy the entire house. The appellant further claimed that due to shortage of accommodation he had to stay with his son elsewhere. The eviction proceedings were contested by the respondent on the following grounds:- (a) that since the appellant was already living with his son there was no particular urgency or personal necessity for him to occupy the rented portion also, (b) that the appellant had in his occupation a part of the house which was retained by him even after inducting him (respondent) as a tenant and which was sufficient for his needs, and (c) that the appellant after keeping his household effects in the portion retained by him had locked up the same and was, therefore, not in actual occupation of the house as required by Explanation (iv) to s. 21 (1) (b). In the same token, it was submitted as a point of law that the essential ingredient of Explanation (iv) to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and the rest of the portion was let out to the tenant. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the requirements of the landlord he had a real and bona fide need for occupying the entire house and therefore, the entire portion occupied by the tenant should have been released in favour of the appellant. This argument was countered by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, counsel for the respondent, who put forward the following legal submission: In the first place, he contended that Explanation. (iv) would not in terms apply to the facts of the present case because on the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below it was not shown that the appellant was in actual occupation of the portion retained by him, which is a prerequisite for the application of Explanation (iv) to s.21 (1) (b). In this connection, it was submitted that the admitted position being that the application was previously employed as a District Judge and was living elsewhere, he could not be deemed to be in occupation of the portion retained by him. In order to appreciate this argument, it may be necessary to examine closely the language of Explanation (iv) which may be extracted thus: (iv) the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that even if a landlord is serving outside or living with his near relations but makes casual visits to his house and thus retains control over the entire or a portion of the property, he would in law be deemed to be in occupation of the same. Therefore, we are unable to accept the argument of Mr. Shanti Bhushan that the essential ingredient of Explanation (iv) has not been made out, there being no actual physical occupation by the landlord of the portion retained by him. Indeed, if the broad argument put forward by the counsel is to be accepted then that would destroy the very concept of constructive or actual possession or occupation. For, instance, even if a house is not let out to anybody but is locked up, can it be said that the owner who is not living there but has kept his household effects, would not be deemed to be in occupation of the same? The answer must necessarily be in the negative. It seems to us that the policy of the law was to give a facility to the landlord so as to secure the entire building where he is in occupation of a part of the same and wants to occupy the whole house. Mr. Shanti Bhushan then argued that Expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anguage which was either expressly or by necessary intendment meant to be operative retrospectively. Lastly, it was argued by Mr. Shanti Bhushan that the fact remains that the appellant, even after retirement, was not in actual possession of the portion retained by him and was living with his son or other relations most of the time exception casual visits to the premises in dispute. A further argument was raised in an additional Note supplied by the counsel for the respondent that as the bathroom and the latrine were in occupation of the tenant, the landlord could not possibly have occupied the premises retained by him and could not have lived there in the absence of these facilities. The High Court rightly rejected these arguments by observing thus: The last argument was that the view of the Prescribed Authority that since the petitioner did not occupy the portion retained by him and lived with his son and, therefore, his need was not bona fide has no merits in as much as the petitioner did not have either a latrine or a bathroom and that he could not possibly occupy the house in the position in which it had been retained. There may be some truth in the submission made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
