H.K.CHAINANI, C.J. - (1.)THE petitioner landlady had made an application to the Mamlatdar under Section 29 read with Section 43D of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act for obtaining possession of the land held by opponent No. 1 as a tenant, on the ground that she bona fide required the land for a non -agricultural purpose. Section 43D gives a right to the landlord to terminate the tenancy of a tenant on the ground that he requires the land bona fide for any non -agricultural purpose. The petitioner's application has been dismissed on the ground that she had not proved any necessity or that it was necessary for her to augment her income by using the land for a non -agricultural purpose.
(2.)THE principal question, which has been argued before us, is whether it is essential for a landlord to prove necessity before he can obtain possession of the land from his tenant on the ground that he wants to use it for a non -agricultural purpose. There appears to be some confusion on this point and it is, therefore, necessary to clarify and state what the correct position in law is. The word used in the section is 'requires' and not 'desires'. The word 'requires' imports an element of necessity. A mere desire or wish of the landlord to put the land to a non -agricultural use is, therefore, not sufficient. He cannot get possession of the land merely because he would like to use the land for a non -agricultural purpose. He must prove some need or necessity for taking back possession of the land. At the same time it must not be an absolute need or absolute requirement in the sense that without it he will starve or will otherwise be put to considerable hardship.
This view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in cases arising under the Bengal Bent Control Acts. In Rekhabchand Doogar v. J.R. D'Cruz (1922) 26 C.W.N. 499, Buckland J. observed: -.The word in the Act is not 'desire' but 'require'. This in my opinion involves something more than a mere wish and it involves an element of need, to some extent at least. These observations were relied upon by Mukharji J. in Basant Lal v. P.C. Chakravarty (1949) 54 C.W.N. 20 he observed:.Mere wish or convenience or whim or fancy of the landlord will not in my view be enough to show that the landlord 'requires' the premises. The landlord must show certain circumstances or facts proving some need or some necessity for the landlord. In Naresh v. Kanai Lal : AIR1952Cal852 , Chunder J. referred to the above observations of Buckland J. in Rekhabchand Doogar v. J.R. D'Cruz and observed that even in the case of a desire there is some element of need, that the real distinction between 'desire' and 'require' lies in the insistence of that need and that there is an element of 'must have' in the case of 'require' which is not present in the case of mere 'desire'. In Re Newhill Comp. Purchase Order [1938] 2 All E.R. 163 Du Parcq J. made the following observations in regard to the word 'required' contained in the expression 'required for the amenity or convenience of the house' used in Section 75 of the Housing Act, 1936:. 'Required', I think, in this section does not mean merely that the occupiers of the house would like to have it, or that they would miss it if they lost it, or that anyone proposing to buy the house would think less of the house without it than he would if it was preserved to it. 'Required' means, I suppose, that without it there will be such a substantial deprivation of amenities or convenience that a real injury will be done to the property owner, and a question like that is obviously a question of fact.

(3.)IN order to obtain possession of the land, it is, therefore, necessary for the landlord to prove some need or necessity. The necessity or requirement would arise when the landlord is in need of additional income for maintaining himself or his family or for educating his children or for some other family purpose. The necessity need not, however, always be a financial one. There may also be other reasons on account of which a landlord may require the land. For instance, if the landlord has no house and he desires to build a house, for his residence on the land, he can be said to require the land. Another illustration is when the landlord wants to open a factory and the only land, which is suitable and available, is the land held by his tenant. In such a case also it may be said that he requires the land. Other cases can also be conceived, in which a landlord may need the land for reasons other than the necessity of increasing his income.