Macleod, C.J:— The plaintiff in these three companion suits carried on the business of a furniture maker, having his business premises in Narayan Dhuru Street. He himself and his family occupied rented premises in Girgaon Boad. Aboub a year ago he purchased certain premises in Grant Road Low Level. Part of the ground floor of these premises was occupied by a printing press, the other rooms were used for various purposes, while the upper floor was occupied by a tenant for the purpose of a School for Girls. After he had purchased these premises, the plaintiff did not show any intention to occupy any part of them for his own purposes. But thereafter he was served with a notice to quit by his landlord with regard to a ??? portion of the premises occupied by him ??? Narayan Dhuru Street, and he had to find ??? other quarters for his business. So ??? decided that he would use part of the ??? Road property for that purpose. At ??? same time it occurred to him that it would ??? be more convenient if he occupied the ??? floor of the Grant Road property for ??? dential purposes instead of continuing live as Girgaon, as he would have his show rooms in one direction, his workshops ??? another; consequently he gave notice ??? quit to the tenants of the printing press, ??? the Girls' School, and of a particular ??? which was used as a garage.
2. The defendants resisted the notices ??? the plaintiff had to file these suits. The ??? have been dismissed in the trial Court ??? issue whether the plaintiff required ??? premises in the suits reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation. ??? plaintiff no longer wishes to burn out ??? defendants in the third suit, and, therefore the appeal, so far as they are ??? will be dismissed.
3. With regard to the 1st defendant ??? no doubt from her point of view it is a ??? case that a lady who has been carrying for several years a Girls' School on ??? premises, attended by a large number girls, should be compelled in these days seek for other quarters for the ??? However, the Court is not concerned ??? hard cases, and the only question is ??? the plaintiff requires the premises in ??? reasonably and bona fide for his use ??? occupation. Ordinarily speaking, an ??? of premises, if be says he wishes to use them for his own purposes, is entitled to do so. What the Rent Act endeavours to provide for, is the case of a landlord who evicts the existing tenants in order that he may let them to another tenant at a higher rent, or exact a higher rent from the tenant on a threat of eviction. It seems to me that the question in this case whether the plaintiff was reasonably dissatisfied with the premises which he rented in Girgaon is irrelevant, because in any event the plaintiff was entitled to live in his own premises. He was not bound to continue in rented premises with all the uncertainties of that tenure. So that a great deal of irrelevant matter has been introduced into these suits, because the plaintiff is obviously entitled to live in any portion of his own house which he chooses, provided he does not seek to occupy more space than is reasonably required for himself and his family. It cannot, therefore, be said that the plaintiff is acting unreasonably in saying that he wishes to occupy the upper storey for himself and his wife and his three children. It has been suggested that he could live on the ground floor in the rooms 12, 13, 14 and 15 in the plan Ex. 5. But again if he ??? to live above the ground floor, there ??? no reason why he should be compelled ??? reside on the ground floor.
4. Then the defendant says “give me these ??? 12, 13, 14 and 15 for the School”, but he plaintiff says “I want those for my business to compensate me for the space ??? I have lost in Narayan Dhuru ???”. There is nothing unreasonable in pat.
5. But it is suggested that the business could ??? carried on in the verandah and the open ???. If the plaintiff says: “I am not ??? to carry on my business in the ??? and the open space,” I should ??? considerable sympathy with him. ??? having regard to the sort of ??? we have been experiencing during ??? last three or four days. There is no ??? why the plaintiff should be ??? to take his business out of ??? rooms and carry it on in the ???.
6. I cannot, therefore, agree with the learned ??? in holding that this issue should be ??? in the negative, so that with regard ??? the suit against Dosibai there must be a ??? tree for possession, but a reasonable time should be allowed to the defendant to vacate, which we fix at six months.
7. With regard to the other defendant who occupies a room for a garage, there is nothing that could possibly be said in his favour. The plaintiff wants that space for his own conveyance of whatever kind it may be. Clearly he is entitled to it. That defendant must vacate in three months.
8. The appeal is allowed against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and dismissed as against respondent No. 3. No order as to costs in the case of any of the defendants in either Court as ejectment proceedings could have been taken in the Small Cause Court.
Shah, J.:— I agree.
9. Appeal partly allowed.
Comments