K.S.LODHA,J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's first appeal in a suit for ejectment. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are that the present appellant the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., is a tenant of the respondent Shri Hukam Chand Jain in respect of the floor of the building owned by the respondent. The apartments with the appellant are a hall, a verandah, a room known as manager's rooms known as record rooms and one more small room. These premises were let out to the appellant on 8.3.1975 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- and initially the period of tenancy was two years and eleven months. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that he requires these premises for his personal, reasonable and bonafide necessity inasmuch as he has a large family. He is the karta of Hindu Joint Family consisting of himself and his four sons, who are all married. It is also stated that he has four daughters who also are all married. In all he has eighteen grandchildren. Three of his sons are residing at Delhi but they and their families off and on come to Jodhpur and stay with the plaintiff who has unfortunately lost his wife and, therefore, require the attendance of his children. His daughters, and their husbands and children also frequently visit him. Apart from them, other friends and relations who visit Jodhpur on their way to pilgrimage to Nakoda, Jaisalmer etc. also stay with him. He requires accommodation for their stay. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff's youngest son Shri Hans Raj wants to establish his own business and has negotiation in this respect with many firms, who have assured him to co-operate and to give loan etc. The business would also be set up in a part of the premises sought to be vacated. The plaintiff himself is an Advocate of long standing and is now seventy three years old. His present residence and office which is in the second floor at height of 30, is inconvenient for him and also for his old clients and for all these reasons, he requires the premises, which are at present in the possession of the defendant appellant. It may be stated here that the present accommodation in possession of the plaintiff himself in the same building in the second floor is in the mardana apartment - the office, bed room and a store, in the janana apartment the bed room, kitchen, store and a chowk and in the third floor, there are two small store rooms. This accommodation is wholly inadequate for the plaintiff and the members of his family in view of what has been stated above.
(2.) THE present suit was filed on 15.5.1980. The defendant contested the suit. It was not specifically denied that the plaintiff has joint Hindu Family consisting of four sons and their wives and children, only ignorance was pleaded in this respect. The requirement of the plaintiff for the suit premises for his personal reasonable and bonafide necessity was denied. It was alleged that the three sons and daughters of the plaintiff do not reside with him and only causally visit him only his youngest son Hans Raj of course stays with him. The fact that Hans Raj wants to put up his own business was also not specifically denied but it was alleged that the premises already in possession of the plaintiff are sufficient and suitable for that purpose. It was also alleged that the plaintiff can add more apartments on the third floor if in fact he requires more accommodation. It may be mentioned here that in the plaint, the plaintiff had further stated that he had tried to help the defendant in getting other accommodation and had shown them certain apartments belonging to other persons so that the defendant could conveniently shift to those premises and vacate the plaintiff's premises but this fact also was not specifically denied. After framing the necessary issues and taking the evidence of the parties, the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur by his judgment and decree date 29.5.82 decreed the plaintiff's suit and granted six months' time to the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the premises. It is against this judgment and decree that the defendant has come up in appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently challenged the finding of the Court below that the plaintiff has reasonable and bonafide necessity of the premises in dispute. The challenge to that finding has been two fold. The first attack was to the effect that as a matter of fact the plaintiff does not require any accommodation in addition to or in exchange of the premises already in his possession and the second ground of attack was that in any case, his requirement for the suit premises is neither reasonable nor bonafide. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has supported these findings of the learned Addl. District Judge, I have already set out the details of the premises which are in possession of the plaintiff in the second floor as also the third floor of the same building. The evidence of the plaintiff Shri Hukam Chand PW3 and his son Shri Jinendra Kumar PW5 as also his other son Shri Hans Raj PW7 leave no room for doubt that the Joint Hindu Family of the plaintiff consists of the plaintiff, his four married sons and their children. Looking to this the size of the family, leaving apart the daughters and their husbands and children, the present accommodation in possession of the plaintiff is wholly insufficient, and, therefore, if he wants the premises in dispute for his occupation, the necessity cannot be said to be unreasonable. The fact that the plaintiff has been residing in the premises for the last many years since the present premises in dispute had been let out to the defendant, is no ground to hold that his requirement is not reasonable looking to the size of the family and the status of the plaintiff. It was, of course, contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is nothing to show that the plaintiff's family is a joint Hindu family and in any case further to show that three sons, who are residing at Delhi, are defendant upon the plaintiff and therefore, their requirement cannot be taken into consideration. I am not impressed by this argument. In the first place, in para No. 1 of the plaint itself, it was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff is the karta of joint Hindu family consisting of the members as stated above and this fact was not specifically denied. In the second place, there is a presumption that the father and sons are joint unless the contrary is alleged and proved. So far as the dependency of the son is concerned, this also was not made the bone of contention in this suit. I, however, need not go in to this question inasmuch as even if forthe sake of argument, it is supposed that the three sons and their wives have separate income and reside separate from the plaintiff it cannot be said that they do not form a part of his Join Hindu Family and are not entitled to visit and stay with him. In these circumstances, the plaintiff is not only required but is perhaps bound to make proper arrangements for their stay with him when they come to visit him and the accommodation required for that purpose would certainly amount to a reasonable necessity for the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to a case reported in Smt. Prakash Kaur v. Narinder (1979)(1) RCR 238) in order to support his contention that the requirement for the purpose of visitor cannot be said to be reasonable or bonafide necessity for the plaintiff. In that case, it was observed as under :- "The authorities below, apart from the fact that she required the house for her personal use, accepted the need of the respondent on the ground that her relations, as well the relations of her husband come to visit her and the additional accommodation was needed for that purpose. This was again, an unwarranted approach. The personal need of the landlord includes only the need of persons dependent on the landlord. The requirement of the landlord to lodge the relations which are not dependent on him cannot be held of be the need of the landlord, as held in Sh. B. Prasad's case." In the first place, in the present case, the need is not merely for the visitors but also for the purpose of making proper accommodation available to the sons and their wives and children, who cannot be said to be mere relations and visitors. This authority is, therefore, clearly distinguishable. In the second place, with all due respect to the learned Judge the view does not commend itself to me. It always depends upon the social statute and status of the landlord whether he requires any accommodation for his visitors and guests. It is not uncommon for a man of status and even a man of a well to do second class family to often receive his relations and guests for long or short visits and it is not always possible for him to make arrangements for their stay away from his house and if for that purpose, a man requires and can afford to have a guests' room in his own house, his requirement cannot be said to be otherwise than reasonable. It is wrong to say, as a matter of fact, that requirement is for a visitors or relations. That requirement is of the landlord himself because it is he who has to look after the comforts of his guest and visitors. I am, therefore perfectly in agreement with the finding of the learned Addl. District Judge that looking to the size of the family of the respondent, the accommodation at present in his possession is wholly insufficient and, therefore, if he requires the present premises in possession of the appellant, his requirement cannot be said to be unreasonable. In this view of the matter, I need not further go into to the question in respect of the premises for the business of his son and his own office as an Advocate in detail because there is no denial of the fact that the respondent is an Advocate by profession and requires an office and a record room or a store room etc for that purpose. As already stated above, the fact that his son Hans Raj wants to set up a business in medicine, has also not been specifically denied and, therefore, for that purpose also, his need cannot be said to be unreasonable. ;