RAMNIKLAL MANILAL BHATT Vs. RAMANLAL NATHUBHAI KAPADIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of the house in Surat purchased by him in the year 1969 with the sitting tenant. The Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 has been made applicable to this premises. He retired from government service in 1976 and he wanted to occupy this premises and therefore he filed a suit for eviction on the ground of his personal and bona fide requirements. He also alleged that the tenant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit for possession on the ground that the so called alternative accommodation is at Ankleshwar and not suitable for the tenant who has settled in Surat. There is concurrent finding of fact that the alternative accommodation cannot be said to be suitable and therefore that cannot be interfered with.

(2.) The lower courts have also held that for the purpose of sec. 13(1)(g) (personal and bona fide requirement of the landlord) the petitioner the plaintiff cannot be said to be a landlord in view of the Explanation to sec. 13(1)(x); he having acquired and purchased the property after 1-1-1964. Said Explanation ads as under:

(3.) view of this cleat position of law both the courts below have dismissed the suit of the petitioner for possession on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement under sec. 13(1)(g).