- (1.) THE suit that has wended up to this Court in this second appeal was filed by the landlord respondent against the tenant-appellant for eviction of the latter from the tenanted premises on the ground of landlord's reasonable requirement for own occupation and has been decreed by both the courts below.
(2.) A landlord's claim for the recovery of possession of a tenanted premises on the ground of reasonable requirement for his own occupation has a qualitative as well as a quantitative aspect. The landlord must face and answer two questions, namely, (1) why does he require and (2)how much does he require. He must, firstly, satisfy the Court that the quality of his requirement, that is, the purpose for which he requires the premises, is reasonable. And he must then satisfy that the quantity, that is, the extent of his requirement for such purpose, is also reasonable. The first question as to the quality or purpose of his requirement may very often give rise to a question of law which would require the Court to, consider as to whether the avowed purpose can in law be regarded to be a reasonable requirement. But once the purpose is found to be qualitatively reasonable, the finding as to the quantity or the extent of his requirement would by and large, be a question of fact and not a question of law, and far less a substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it now stands amended in 1976.
(3.) IN Mattulal v. Radhe Lal (AIR 1974 SC 1596 at 1601-2), a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has ruled that in view of an earlier four-Judge Bench decision in Sarvate T. B. v. Nemi Chand (1966 madhya Pradesh Law Journal 26), and also even otherwise on principle, a finding as to the reasonable requirement of a suit-premises by the landlord in a suit for ejectment against the tenant is to be regarded as a finding of fact. Referring to the three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Kamla Soni v. Rup Lal Mehra (1970 Rent Control journal 34) holding that such a finding would be a finding on a mixed question of law and fact, the Supreme Court in Muttulal (supra) has pointed out that the said decision in Kamal Soni (supra) was per interim having been rendered without any advertence to the larger Bench decision in Sarvate T. B. (supra) and can not be taken to have laid down good law either on authority or in principle. The position that has emerged in view of Sarvate T. B. (supra) as explained and amplified in Muttulal (supra), is that the finding as to the reasonable requirement being a finding of fact is unassailable in second appeal, unless it can be shown that such a finding was arrived at on an erroneous application of law or was based on no evidence at all or was such as could not be arrived at by any reasonable person.;