V. S. Deshpande ( 1 ) [respondent sued tenant for eviction on the ground that he needed the garage in the occupation of the appellant for parkng his car. Rent Controller and tribunal held in his favour. Tenant appealed to the High Court. Appeal was dismissed. Paras 4 to 9 of the Judgement are :- ( 2 ) THE first question is whether the premises were wanted by the landlord for occupation as a residence. The word "residence" has not been defined in the Act but it has been used in connection with the user of premises which are defined in section 2 (i) of the Act. The definition of "premises" is a building or part of a building which is, or is intended to be, let separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose, and includes the garden, grounds and out-houses, if any, appertaining to such building or part of the building. The premises in dispute are in the nature of an out-house to the main house of the landlord and are, therefore, included in the definition of "premises". These premises were let for use as residence by the tenant who actually lives in them. Are these required by the landlord for "residence"? As already observed, the relevance of the word "residence" in the Act is in the context of the user of any premises. While using the premises every portion of the built up area is not necessarily used for the living of human beings. For instance, water closets, store-rooms, attics, verandhas and out-houses may not be used for residence as such but for purposes incidental to residence. When premises are said to be used for residence, it is implied that parts of the premises may be used for purposes incidental to actual residence. Such purposes are, therefore, included in residential purposes. ( 3 ) THE question is whether a motor garage is such necessary incident of human habitation or residence as to be included in the word "residence"?. Whenever a garage is actually used by the resident of the house for the parking of his car there would be no dispute that the house as well as the garage was being used for a residential purpose. Whenever a garage is actually used by the resident of the house for the parking of his car there would be no dispute that the house as well as the garage was being used for a residential purpose. Would the same be true when the landlord wishes to evict the residential tenant of a garage on the ground that he wants the garage for use as a "residence"? It would appear that the need of the landlord to keep his car in ths garaga is a necessary incident of the residence of the landlord in the main house and therefore the garage is wanted by the landlord "for occupation as a residence within the meaning of proviso (e) section 14 (1) of the Act. Just as we say that the landlord is using house as residence without meaning thereby that every nook and corner of his his house is used for tha living of human beings, similarly we mean that the garage is wanted by the landload for his residence in the sense that he wants it for a purpose which is a necessary incident of his residence in the main house. I find so. ( 4 ) THE expression "bona fide" is used to qualify the requirement of the landlord for the garage. The requirement has to be in existence and has to be actual. If would not be a true requirement if, for instance, the landlord does not have a car to be kept in the garage or if he temporarily brings a car merely to show that he wants the garage without really intending to use it for the parking of the car. The status of the landlord and the way of his life would show whether the landlord is using the car in the ordinary way and not in any forced or mala fide way. We cannot inquire into his bona fide beyond these legitimate considerations. Whether the car is being used by the landlord legitimately or not is mostly to be decided by the way landlord wants to arrange his own expenditure. There is nothing, therefore, to show in the present case that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide. ( 5 ) WHETHER the open compound of the landlord can be said to be a reasonably suitable accommodation for his car depends on a variety of considerations. There is nothing, therefore, to show in the present case that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide. ( 5 ) WHETHER the open compound of the landlord can be said to be a reasonably suitable accommodation for his car depends on a variety of considerations. Primarily it is for the landlord to decide whether his car should be exposed to sun and rain or whether he would like it to be protected in a garage. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the motor car may not be a luxury, the garage is regarded as a luxury in the cities. A garage is a luxury in the sense that costly land in the city has to be occupied by garage and the landlord has to forego income which he could have obtained by letting out such garages to tenants for residence. Therefore, if the question were to be for a planning authority as to whether land should be allotted for purposes of building garages for cars or not then how far a garage is needed by a particular kind of plot or house may be a relevant consideration. Similarly if a garage is to constructed by a public authority as an adjunct to a Government flat, the Government may well consider whether the status for the persons expected to occupy a particular kind of flat was such as to justify the construction of a garage for the same. But the garage is not luxury when it is considered from the point of view of the need of the car for protection from sun and rain. If the owner of a car wants to preserve his car from damage of sun and rain it cannot be said that he is incurring unnecessary expenditure in constructing a garage. For the same reason it cannot be said that open compound which exposes the car to sun-and rain is a reasonably suitable accommodation for the car. ( 6 ) FURTHER considerations of security and conveyance can always be considered in judging whether the open compound was a reasonably suitable accommodation for the car of the landlord. In view of the danger of theft either of the car or of parts of the car. the landlord can legitimately wish to keep his car in locked up garage. ( 6 ) FURTHER considerations of security and conveyance can always be considered in judging whether the open compound was a reasonably suitable accommodation for the car of the landlord. In view of the danger of theft either of the car or of parts of the car. the landlord can legitimately wish to keep his car in locked up garage. Further, the landlord cannot be expected every time to request the other tenant to move out his car so that the landlord may be able to move out his car, This would certainly be inconvenient for the landlord. It cannot be said, therefore, that the parking of the car inside the compound of the house was a reasonably suitable accommodation for the car of the landlord. ( 7 ) IN assessing the bonafide requirement of the landlord and finding out if the present accominodation was reasonably suitable for the landlord, attention has to be confined only to the various circumstances described above in connection with landlord himself. It would not be legitimate to compare the need of the landlord for the additional accommodation for the car with the need of the tenant to live in the premises from which the tenant is being evicted. It may be that the need of the tenant to live in the garage in an ethical sense is greater than the need of the landlord of keeping his car in the garage. It is also true that the right of the landlord over his property has been subject to a reasonable restriction ia favour of the tenant by the Act. But neither the Act nor any other principle requires the Court to compare the need of the landlord for the garage with the need of the tenant for the premises.