R.S.Dhavan - - (1.) A tenant resided in a certain accommodation, the subject matter of this writ petition, in the city of Kanpur since 1942. In the accommodation, which the tenant had, is now occupied by his three children. These children lost their mother and during the pendency of the proceeding their father too. The tenancy was inherited by the children. At the Bar it is contended that amongst the three children one daughter got married, but it is not disputed that the other two continue in the accommodation. A reference to this can be had from the petition itself, in paragraph 5. The writ petition mentions the surviving tenants as Mahesh Chandra, 28 years and his sister Sudha, unmarried at 24 years. The other is, Saroj, aged 26 years, in the petition it is mentioned that she is now married, though this statement of fact was not made by the petitioner before the two courts below. However, this circumstance is otherwise not relevant.
(2.) THE petitioner purchased this accommodation in 1968 being conscious of the fact that it has tenants and it was a residential accommodation. He installed oil expellers and crushers in a substantial part of the accommodation, thus changing the use of a residential accommodation. Out of the six sets of tenants, who resided, he evicted five of them. THEn he overhauled the entire construction, except the one occupied by the present set of tenants, who saved themselves by an injunction that their portion be not demolised. THE landlord resided in a remodelled new construction carrying on a business and an industry on the ground floor and residing on the rest of the portion with his family. In 1976 he moved an application seeking release of the accommodation. The pleas of the landlord rested on the circumstance that the accommodation which was available with him was not sufficient and was inconvenient for his family. The tenant, the father of the three children who were party to the proceedings by substitution, filed a written statement controverting the release and stated that the landlord had concealed the quantum of accommodation and had more accommodation with him than he had set on record. This occasioned a commission from the court of the Prescribed Authority to assess the accommodation available with the landlord and the tenant. The report of the commissioner resolved the controversy on the accommodation available between the landlord and tenant. The report puts at fault the landlord's facts on the accommodation available with him and places on record that the landlord has more accommodation and surplus for that matter, than he had suggested in his plaint. In effect, the commissioner's report intimated to the court that there was sufficient accommodation available with the landlord which was lying unutilised. The two courts went into the exercise of examining whether the need of the landlord had been satisfied upon the accommodation which was in his possession and came to the conclusion that the three couples who resided in the accommodation had exclusively a bed room each to themselves besides surplus accommodation was available even after a room was set apart for the childrens' study. On this aspect of sufficient accommodation being available, the trial court observes : "In this way there are 4 rooms on the second floor besides Bathroom and 5 rooms on the first floor in the occupation of applicants for residential purposes. Admittedly there are 3 married sons in the family of applicant besides applicant. For each of the room (sic) at least one separate bed room is necessary in order to keep the privacy of married life intact. Other may also require a separate room, being old lady. The other children may require at least 2 rooms for living purposes. In this way at least 7 bed rooms are required for a family of applicants. Besides that being mean status and having and social contacts they may require a separate drawing room cum sitting room. Even that is available to them on the first floor. They can also utilise a room for study purpose of the children. In this way the total accommodation available to them on first floor as well as second floor, to my mind is sufficient to cater their present need."
(3.) THUS, the plea which began with inadequacy of accommdoation turned out to be incorrect and it was found that the landlord has more than he could utilise. In these circumstances the tenants, who reside in the accommodation today, being the progenies of erstwhile tenant Retoti Prasad, now dead, are entitled to remain in the accommodation under the protection of the order of the two courts below by which the release of the landlord has been found to be devoid of merits and rightly rejected. There is, thus, no illegality in the orders of the two courts below nor any merit in the case of the landlord seeking release of the accommodation with the tenant.;