Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) LIST revised. No one appears for the respondent. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. This is landlord's writ petition whose release application on the ground of bona fide need has been rejected by both the Courts below. The Courts below spread the map of the building in occupation of landlord before themselves and tried to allocate different rooms and portions to different family members of the landlord and for other purposes. Alas! It is not the function of the Court. Release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 78 of 1983. (Kallu Mal v. Smt. Prem Lata and others). Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Havali, Meerut rejected the application on 2.1.1984 against which Misc. (P.A.) Appeal No. 251 of 1984 was filed. VIII A.D.J., Meerut dismissed the appeal on 24.8.1985, hence this writ petition.
(2.) ON page 51 of the paper book as Annexure -6 the copy of the map of the accommodation in dispute and the accommodation available to the landlord has been annexed. Appellate Court in paras 11 and 12 of its judgment has mentioned the accommodation in possession of the landlord and in para 13 it has been mentioned that there is only one room and Varanda and open space in the tenanted accommodation. In para -14 the details of the family members of landlord have been mentioned. In para 16 of the judgment which runs into four pages ridiculous attempt has been made to suggest to the landlord as to how he can squeeze his family members in the insufficient accommodation available to him and still leave room for other purposes like drawing room, store room etc. One of the suggestions is that drawing room may be used by his unmarried daughters and covered Varanda be used as drawing room. Dalian (Varanda) is not meant to be used as drawing room. It would have been more appropriate for the Appellate Court to direct the landlord to do away with the need of drawing room by telling his relations and friends not to come to his residence! Thereafter, the suggestion is that passage may be used as bath room. A portion of para 16 of judgment of Appellate Court on pages 43 & 44 of the paper book is quoted below. Still there remains Balcony open roof and courtyard with the landlord to keep his households. No doubt the family of the landlord is a very big family. He must be having a huge number of house hold goods. However, he has open roof and Chhajja. He may keep there his household goods. There he may use courtyard also. At the first floor there is a covered Varandah. This may be used as store and for accommodating of living of married daughters. Thus, number of the family members and accommodation as stated above would show that the landlord has sufficient accommodation in his possession. He may adjust his family although his family is very big family but the accommodation is also not less with him in comparison to the members of his family. It may be possible that the third son shall be married and he will be having his family. He will require an additional room but his need is not at present. He is only 15 years old. He may live in the room at the first floor. If he is married in near future, his family may be adjusted in the covered Varandah of the first floor. Keeping in view a scarcity of the houses in the city. It cannot be said that the landlord has no sufficient accommodation in his possession. The whole approach is erroneous in law and cannot be approved. Even tenant cannot dictate the landlord to adjust his family in small accommodation let alone the Court. The Appellate Court has played the role of either Rationing Officer or Interior Decorator. The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court clearly shows that the learned Court was fully satisfied about the need of the landlord, however, in order to protect the tenant from their eviction, he suggested the means through which landlord could squeeze himself, his family and his house hold goods in the accommodation available to him. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. U.I. Insurance Co. : AIR 1999 SC 100 (para 14), that: It is often said by Courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavor as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.
(3.) TENANT also did not show that what efforts he made to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application, which itself was sufficient to decide the question of comparative hardship against the tenant vide B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada : AIR 2003 SC 2713.;