JAGANNATH KARANANI AND ANR. Vs. SAYED ABDUL WAHED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Defendants appeal. Plaintiff -Respondents brought a suit for ejectment of the contesting Defendants. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 6 are the sons and Plaintiff No. 7 is the widow of one late Syed Abdul Kadir. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the principal Defendants and Defendants Nos. 3 to 6 are joined as pro forma Defendants as they have some interest in the land whereon the suit house stands Defendant No. 1 occupied the house in suit being holding No. 81 of the Jorhat Municipality and both the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 carried on cloth business therein. The rent of the house was settled at Rs. 100/ - per month by a compromise in Misc. Case No. 55 of 1952 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. The suit was brought for ejectment of the Defendants on the ground that the Plaintiffs bona fide required the house to start their own business. Plaintiff No. 1 being the head of the family looks after the property of the family and he served a notice dated 21 -7 -58 asking the Defendants to vacate the house but they refused to do so. The Defendants denied that the Plaintiffs required the house for their own business and fur their contended that the Plaintiffs waived the notice.

(2.) THE trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the house was not required bona fide by the Plaintiffs and further that the notice had been waived.

(3.) SECTION 6 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act lays down the conditions under which a landlord can recover his house. Under Section 6(1)(c) a house can be recovered where it is bona fide required by the landlord for his own occupation or the occupation of any person for whose benefit the house is held. The expression bona fide requirement is not the same thing as bona fide needs. The question whether the house is bona fide required by the Plaintiffs is a question of fact and in second appeal the finding of the lower appellate court cannot be interfered with. It is not the convenience or otherwise of the Defendants which has to be looked into. If the Plaintiffs bona fide require the house for their own use, no amount of inconvenience to the Defendants will take away the Plaintiffs' right to evict them. Cases where the landlord requires it for the purpose of letting it out on a higher rent, stand on a different footing and there it cannot be said that the landlord requires it for his own use but here it is found by the court of fact that the landlord requires it for his own use and the fact that it will cause inconvenience and hardship to the Defendant is no ground for refusing the decree for ejectment.