Case: Pratap Rai Tanwani  Vs. Uttam Chand

to take place which might happen in relation to the parties as well as the subject-matter of the lis. If the cause of action is to be submerged in such subsequent events on account of the malady of the system it shatter the confidence of the litigant, despite the impairment already caused. 12. The above position in law was highlighted in Gaya Prasad vs. Pradeep Srivastava (2001 (2) SCC 604 ). 13. One of the grounds for eviction contemplated by all the rent control legislations, which otherwise generally lean heavily in favour of the tenants, is the need of the owner landlord to have his own premises, residential or non-residential, for his own use or his own occupation. The expressions employed by different legislations may vary such as "bona fide requirement", "genuine need", "requires reasonably and in good faith", and so on. Whatever be the expression employed, the underlying legislative intent is one and that has been demonstrated in several judicial pronouncements of which we would like to refer to only three. 14. In Ram Dass vs. Ishwar Chander (1988 (3) SCC 131 ) M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the three-Judge Bench, said: (SCC pp. 134-35, para 11) "11. Statutes enacted to afford protection to tenants from eviction on the basis of contractual rights of the parties make the resumption of possession by the landlord subject to the satisfaction of certain statutory conditions. One of them is the bona fide requirement of the landlord, variously described in the statutes as `bona fide requirement, `reasonable requirement, `bona fide and reasonable requirement or, as in the case of the present statute, merely referred to as `landlord requires for his own use. But the essential idea basic to all such cases is that the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith; and that, further, the court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that need. Landlords desire for possession, however honest it might otherwise be, `requirement in law must have the objective element of a `need. It must also be such that the court considers it reasonable and therefore, eligible to be gratified. In doing so, the court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant is not rendered merely illusory or whittled down." 15. In Gulabbai vs. Nalin Narsi Vohra (1991 (3) SCC 483 ) reiterating the view taken in Bega Begum vs. Abdul Ahad Khan (1979 (1) SCC 273 ) it was held that the words "reasonable requirement" undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire. 16. Recently, in Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999 (6) SCC 222 ) this Court in a detailed judgment, dealing with this aspect, analysed the concept of bona fide requirement and said that the requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant refers to a state of mind prevailing with the landlord. The only way of peeping into the mind of the landlord is an exercise undertaken by the judge of facts by placing himself in the armchair of the landlord and then posing a question to himself - whether in the given facts, substantiated by the landlord, the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bona fide. We do not think that we can usefully add anything to the exposition of law of requirement for self-occupation than what has been already stated in the three precedents. 17. The above position was remained effected in Atma S. Berar vs. Mukhtiar Singh (2003 (2) SCC 3 ): 18. In the background of the factual position one thing which clearly emerges is that the High Court had considered the subsequent events which the appellants highlighted and tend to hold that the bona fide need continues to subsist. As observed in Hasmat Rajs case (supra) the appellate Court is required to examine, evaluate and adjudicate the subsequent events and their effect. This has been done in the instant case. That factual finding does not suffer from any infirmity. What the appellants have highlighted as subsequent events fall within the realm of possibility or probability of non-return and a certainty, which is necessary to be established to show that the need has been eclipsed.19. As this juncture is would be appropriate to take note of Section 17 of the Act. Same deals with consequences which statutorily follow if there is deviation from the purposes for which possession has been recovered. If in the instant case such contingency arises, the respondents shall re-deliver possession to the appellants-tenants on such terms as the Rent Controlling Authority shall fix.20. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that considering the long period of tenancy a reasonable time should be granted to the appellant to vacate the premises.21. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the High Court has granted time till the end of August, 2002 and by order dated 9th August, 2002 status quo regarding possession was directed to be maintained. Undisputedly the tenants are in occupation of the tenanted premises.22. Considering the fact that the tenants are occupying the premises for nearly two decades, in our considered view the time granted by the High Court can be extended till the end of 2005. The period of tenancy is extended till the aforesaid date subject to the appellants filing the requisite undertaking before the trial court and make continuing to payment of rents due within the stipulated time. Arrears, if any, shall be paid to the respondents within the period of two months from today. 23.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In the background of the factual position one thing which clearly emerges is that the High Court had considered the subsequent events which the appellants highlighted and tend to hold that the bona fide need continues to subsist. As observed in Hasmat Rajs case (supra) the appellate Court is required to examine, evaluate and adjudicate the subsequent events and their effect. This has been done in the instant case. That factual finding does not suffer from any infirmity. What the appellants have highlighted as subsequent events fall within the realm of possibility or probability of non-return and a certainty, which is necessary to be established to show that the need has been eclipsed.19. As this juncture is would be appropriate to take note of Section 17 of the Act. Same deals with consequences which statutorily follow if there is deviation from the purposes for which possession has been recovered. If in the instant case such contingency arises, the respondents shall re-deliver possession to the appellants-tenants on such terms as the Rent Controlling Authority shall fix.20. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that considering the long period of tenancy a reasonable time should be granted to the appellant to vacate the premises.21. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the High Court has granted time till the end of August, 2002 and by order dated 9th August, 2002 status quo regarding possession was directed to be maintained. Undisputedly the tenants are in occupation of the tenanted premises.22. Considering the fact that the tenants are occupying the premises for nearly two decades, in our considered view the time granted by the High Court can be extended till the end of 2005. The period of tenancy is extended till the aforesaid date subject to the appellants filing the requisite undertaking before the trial court and make continuing to payment of rents due within the stipulated time. Arrears, if any, shall be paid to the respondents within the period of two months from today.