1. Joseph Chakola owned many buildings in Ernakulam, including the one involved in this case. It has three rooms, besides bathoom and latrine; and had been occupied for some time as a residential building. The revision petitioner-co-operative society took one of the rooms on lease in 1964. Years later, Joseph Chakola passed away. Soon thereafter, the building passed hands. It was purchased in 1978 by the respondent herein, referred to by the Rent Controller as “a young man of 31 decently employed”. The new landlord intended to get married and “to have separate residence of his own with his wife”. The occupants of two rooms appreciated the need; they surrendered the rooms to the landlord. The Society did not, however, yield. The landlord then terminated the tenancy and demanded surrender of the building. The demand went unheeded to. That led to the eviction proceedings. Many contentions originally raised are now submerged by the concurrent decisions of the courts below. Only one remains for adjudication by the High Court. That relates to the question: Does the decision of a young man of thirty one, to marry soon and to move to a new establishment, constitute a bona fide need justifying eviction of a tenanted building belonging to him, on a proper interpretation of S. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965?

2. The landlord did not have any other building of his own. His mother did own one building, where she lived with her daughter and the son, the landlord herein.

3. The insistence of the landlord to have a separate roof of his own before the solemnisation of his marriage, later lost its rigidity. He was perhaps aware of the possible protraction of the eviction proceedings. In the course of the proceedings before the appellate authority, he got married. A further question whether an event which occurred subsequent to the filing of the rent control petition could be reckoned, for giving relief, was adverted to by the revisional authority though omitted to be noted by the appellate authority. It was, however, felt that eviction could be ordered, even viewing things from the facts as they obtained at the time of the rent control petition.

4. S. 11(3) of the Act is the provision relied on by the landlord. That enables him to obtain possession of the building “if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation………….”.

5. All the authorities have concurred to hold that the need put forward by the landlord was genuine, and that he had not been motivated by any oblique objective, such as exacting an augmented rent. It was also found that the building is a residential one and capable of being used as such, despite the Society having used the one room occupied by it for commercial purposes.

6. The crux of the surviving contention is that as on the date of the filing of the petition he was only a bachelor. He had, therefore, no need on that day for a residential building with three rooms. His residential requirements were more than met by his stay with his mother and sister in a building owned by the mother. This contention, as noted earlier, met with disapproval all through. Counsel persisted in arguing that notwithstanding the view so expressed by the three subordinate authorities, the requirements of the section are not satisfied, if the need is absent on the date of the filing of the petition. How can a bachelor maintain a petition on a prospect based on a need for a matrimonial home, when marriage had not even been arranged or settled and remained only a sweet dream in his mind?—queried counsel.

7. I am clearly of the view that the decision reached by the authorities below is the correct one. No person, even when he is a landlord, could be found fault with for ordaining his affairs in a proper or planned manner. Planning is, in a sense, a part of regulated modern life. Planning has been accepted as a necessary pattern of functioning for the Nation. Enlightened persons plan their future in accordance with their ideas and ideals. Even parenthood is planned. It is, therefore, unjust to suggest that the landlord could seek eviction of a building, for him to live with his spouse, only after undergoing the marriage nuptials. He is justifiably entitled to foresee things and plan his life. The tribunal or court would not sit in judgment over his honest or bona fide decision in that regard.

8. It is not necessary to speculate whether the landlord had earlier hesitated, like the French wit who, referring to women said: “It is difficult to live with them; and it is difficult to live without them.” As noted earlier, the landlord at the time when he moved the Rent Control Court was already 31. That is not an age, judged by any criterion, a premature one for marriage. It is not a child marriage, the type of which was fairly common in the Tudor period of England (the like of which Sir George Otto Trevulyan gives an interesting account in his ‘English Social History’ an excerpt of which reads:

“In 1582, Bishop Chadarton married off his only daughter Joan, aged nine, to a boy of eleven. On another occasion John Rigmarden, aged three, was carried in the arms of a clergyman who coaxed him to repeat the words of matrimony to a bride of five. Before the end he struggled to get down, saying he would learn no more that day; but the person said, you must speak a little more and then go play you.”).

9. Thirtyone, is an age, when like Browning this young landlord could have thought: “In every man's life there is one chance of salvation through a woman”, and perhaps hoped:

“What a blessed union should our souls combine,

I here alone and she be only mine.”

10. The passage of time would have brought to him the message of matrimonial bliss; such as the one Sir John Morley relates:

“Marriage……is a vocation imposed by nature…He who counts on bliss without alloy knows neither the life of man nor the designs of heaven. If marriage exposes us to cruel pain, it is also the source of the sweetest pleasures. Where are the examples of pure and heartfelt interest, of real tenderness, of inmost confidence, of daily help, of griefs divided, of tears mingled, if they be not in marriage? What is there in the world that the good man prefers to his wife? What is there in the world that a father loves more dearly than his children? O sacred bond, if I think of thee, my whole soul is warmed and elevated”

11. It is sufficient to note that at a mature age, the landlord took a firm decision to marry. Subsequent events confirm that it was not a fleeting or evanescent thought but a decision taken after due deliberation. Law certainly esteems the marriage institution. As observed by Dillon, L.J in Richards v. Richards, (1983) 1 All ER. 1017:

“Marriage is an institution which I personally regard as fundamental to the civilisation of our society, and of inestimable benefit to those who have the good fortune to be happily married.”

12. Additional accommodation arising out of a marriage connection should therefore receive due recognition. It is not reasonable to insist that such a landlord should undergo the marriage caremony and thereafter fight a litigation for eviction of the building for over a decade. Where, as in the present case, circumstances clinchingly establish a bona fide decision of the landlord to have a married life and a genuine requirement of an independent household, the elements of a bona fide need for obtaining eviction would be certainly satisfied.

13. Long time back it has been recognised that the bride's place is with the husband. Sankaran Nair, J. speaking on behalf of himself and Wallis, J. said so (see Surampalli Bangaramma v. Surampalli Brambaza, ILR. 31 Madras 338): “Her home is in her husband's house”. The fact that the landlord's mother owns a house is no ground to deny the landlord the claim for eviction of his own building. A feeling that one is under his own roof, and as of right, is a comforting one duly recognised and protected by law and legal institutions. Even if one need not be apprehensive that a close relation like a father or mother, brother or sister may not drive him out of the house owned by any of them, the need felt by the individual to have a separate establishment is a perfectly justified one. Quite often, in a house where young members grow and in course of time develop as small families, a necessity of one or more among them to seek alternative or additional accommodation is recognised by law. (See Ramakrishnan v. Gopalan Moothan, 1971 KLT. 427). Sadasivan, J. said there:

“When the members constituting a joint family feel that accommodation is insufficient and for maintaining healthy relationship between members inter se, it is better that other accommodation is found”.

and rightly emphasised:

“the matter has to be viewed from a practical and humane standpoint”.

14. If that be the position in the case of a need of a member of a Joint Hindu Family possessed of a residential building, a fortiori the need of a Christian landlord has to be recognised, irrespective of his mother owning a building. That the landowner can initiate eviction proceedings when the need is reasonably within sight has also been recognised by the decision of this court. (See the observations of Krishna Iyer, J. in Madhavan v. Ramachandran, ILR. 1970 (2) Kerala 101:

“It is enough if it (the need) is reasonably likely to arise in the near future.”)

15. In the light of the above discussion there is hardly any ground for interfering with the finding regarding the existence of a bona fide need of the landlord. There is, therefore, no merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed but without costs.

16. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that some reasonable time may be allowed to enable it to shift to another accommodation. This request is reasonable. Having regard to all the circumstances, I direct that the decree for eviction will not be implemented till 15-3-1984 if the revision petitioner files before the Rent Controller, within a month from to-day, an affidavit undertaking to surrender the building to the landlord on or before 15-3-1984. The civil revision petition is disposed of as above.

17. Dismissed.