In Re: Samarendra Mohan Gupta And Anr. vs Unknown on 7 December, 1989
In Parimal v. Santosh (88 CWN 510) this Court held that in the facts of that case married daughter even can be a member of the family. I do not propose to enter into the controversy. Husband and wife require a bed room and the unmarried daughter requires another. It may be a luxuary on her part to ask for another room as a study room. In these days of acute housing problem such luxuary is impermissible however well accommodated her father had been during his service period. One room is needed as a drawing room of the family. Colonel Hoare requires a room for his chamber. One room is needed for being used as a dining room. These minimum requirements will need two rooms on the first floor used by the landlady as bed rooms, and corresponding two rooms on the ground floor in occupation of the tenants and another small room used as store in ground floor. Other accommodations available in the house are not suitable for use as! bed rooms, drawing room and chamber. In any event therefore two rooms in occupation of the tenants are needed by the landlady. It is argued that no case for a chamber for the landlady's husband has been either made out in the petition or in evidence. In page 8 of the plaint the need for a chamber has been pleaded. Landlady has supported her case in her evidence. In cross-examination the tenant Samarendra says that the husband of the landlady is a physician and he can practice in medicine after retirement. Therefore the argument on this score has no foundation. Other accommodations available in the house may be used as kitchen, store, bath, privy. Those accommodations are unsuitable as bed rooms, drawing room, chamber and dining room. The materials on record do not therefore warrant my interference in finding of fact of the Rent Controller.