Sheela Sapra And Anr. vs New India Electrical Industrial Co. ... on 10 March, 1992
(12) In Sh. Hargun Dass v, Shri Rewa Chand 1986 (1) Rcr 147, the Single Bench of this Court took the contrary view that it was common knowledge that in Hindu society, married daughters keep on visiting their father's home off and on. The following passages may be reproduced in this regard: "The question which still remain to be answered is whether he genuinely and bonafide needs more accommodation for the study of his college/school going children and for the stay of his married daughter, her husband and children and his eldest son, who is at present employed at Bombay. It is common knowledge that in Hindu society married daughters keep on visiting their father's home off and on. It is not only customary for the married daughters to be invited on certain social functions but even otherwise parents would like them to come and stay with them for some time. The cords of affection in the family are not suddenly snapped on a daughter getting married or a son living away from his parents to eke out his livelihood. The parents very much wish and desire that their married daughters, her husband and children as also their sons who happen to live elsewhere for earning livelihood etc. keep on visiting them. It is for satiating their own love and affection for children that parents want them to come to their home and stay with them. There is a long catena of decisions of this Court in which has been repeatedly held that a landlord can legitimately say that he wants more accommodation for his married daughters also. However, a discordant note has been recently struck by a learned Judge of this Court and he has expressed the view that it would be wrong to give too much importance or weight to this factor. Says the learned Judge that: "Surely, it would be a total distortion of the law to make an order for recovery of possession against a tenant so that the married daughters and friends of the landlord may be more comfortable during their fleeting visit is. And, the tenant is evicted not for the short spell while the visit lasts, but for ever. That is no way of holing the balance." (See Sat Pal V.Nand Kishore and another, 23 (1983) DLT (SN6)
(13) With great respect, I may say that while considering this factor what is to be taken into account is not only the requirement of the married daughter or who visits his paternal home but also the requirement of the landlord himself stemming from his insatiable love and, affection for his children that his married daughters and sons living away from him should come and stay with him off and on. Hence, need for additional accommodation on that account can by no means be said to be unreal or malafide. Moreover resultant hardship to the tenant who faces imminent eviction is not a factor to reckon with under the relevant provision of the Act. The additional accommodation sought by the landlord in the instant case can well serve both the purpose of a study room and a guest room, as the need be. Looked at from this angle, there is no escape from the conclusion that the respondent landlord is in dire need of additional accommodation as the existing accommodation with him is absolutely insufficient and inadequate for his and his family's requirement. By no stretch of reasoning it can be dubbed as malafide or dishonest."