practicality of life, can never be an alternate to legality. Here, while the Sangam Vihar premises is an illegality, the premises in tenancy of petitioner are in a market in a sanctioned colony. From the very nature of the two premises, the Sangam Vihar premises cannot be „alternate‟ to the premises in tenancy of petitioner. Merely because the Government has brought out a scheme for regularisation of unauthorised colonies cannot allow this Court to treat the same as legal, more so when it is still to be decided whether the unauthorised colony of Sangam Vihar is covered also by the said scheme or not. This Court in Radhey Shyam Khanna Vs. Amar Nath Khanna (1982) 21 DLT 273 dismissed the appeal against an order of eviction holding the premises in possession the landlord to be not alternate suitable accommodation, inter alia for the reason of the same being situated in an unauthorized colony. Moreover, once the landlord has a premises of his own, wherefrom the need for premises for a medical practice can be satisfied, it does not lie in the mouth of the tenant to say that the landlord should continue in an unauthorised colony, for the sake of allowing an old tenant, inducted when the landlord did not need the premises, to continue to enjoy the premises. Supreme Court, in Siddalingamma Vs. Mamtha Shenoy (2001) 8 SCC 561 reiterated that if the landlord wishes to occupy the comfort of his premises, law does not command and compel him to squeeze or dwell in lesser premises so as to protect the tenant‟s continued occupation in tenancy premises.
