Whether landlord can claim possession of tenanted premises for use of his family members?

Whether the requirement of the landlord for own occupation could also mean occupation by a member of the family, in this case, the son, is the short question arising for consideration.

It was submitted by Mr. Andley, learned Counsel for the Respondents that the words used in Section 11(1)(h) are "that the house should be required by the landlord for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the house or shop is held". It was argued that the words "own occupation" clearly postulate that the landlord must require it for his personal residence and not for starting any business in the house. We are, however, unable to agree with this argument. The provision is meant for the benefit of the landlord and, therefore, it must be so construed as to advance the object of the Act. The word "occupation" does not exclude the possibility of the landlord starting a business or running a hotel in the shop which also would amount to personal occupation by the landlord. In our opinion, the Section con-templates the actual possession of the landlord, whether for his own residence or for his business. It is manifest that even if the landlord is running a hotel in the house, he is undoubtedly in possession or occupation of the house in the legal sense of the term. Furthermore, the Section is wide enough to include the necessity of not only the landlord but also of the persons who are living with him as members of the same family.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 1398-1399 of 2011

Decided On: 17.02.2017

Mehmooda Gulshan Vs.Javaid Hussain Mungloo

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Kurian Joseph and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.

Citation:(2017) 5 SCC 683.

Read full judgment here: Click here