CHANDRAKANT M DESHPANDE Vs. VANSANTRAO B TOKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Allotment of quarter to the employee of the State or the Central Government in connection with his employment with the employer could be said or not as acquisition or allotment of the suitable alternative accommodation under Sec. 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) is the main theme of this Revision Petition. Thus, short and interesting question which has figured in this revision is with regard to the interpretation and applicability of the provisions of Sec. 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) The petitioner is the original defendant-tenant and the respondents are the original plaintiffs landlords. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the landlords, and tenant. The defendant is the tenant in respect of one room in the building bearing Municipal Census No. 17-136 situated in the city of Baroda, at a monthly rent of Rs. 35.00. There is no dispute about the fact that the plaintiffs are the landlords and the defendant is the tenant in respect of the demise property consisted of one room.

(3.) The landlords filed Rent Suit No. 3273 of 1975 for the purpose of recovery of rent and eviction of the demise property against the tenant on the ground of his having acquired and allotted suitable alternative accommodation under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act. Other averments in the suit and the written statement are not material for the present. The defendant tenant resisted the suit by filing written statement, inter alia, contending that the plaintiffs are not the only owners and landlords and therefore, they are not entitled to the file suit. He also contended that he had been let not only one room but the entire portion of the second floor of the suit property. A contention was also raised that the contractual rate of rent is not the standard rent. He denied the allegations of arrears of rent. He also filed Civil Misc. Application No. 337 of 1975 for the purpose of fixation of standard rent. Other averments made in the plaint were also denied. The material part important for the purpose of this revision is about the acquisition and allotment of quarter to the tenant. The defendant-tenant denied that he was offered quarter by the Railway authority. Alternatively, he contended that the staff quarter is not suitable for his residence.