HASMUKHLAL RAICHAND SHAH Vs. ARVINDBHAI MOHAN LAL KAPADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which calls for determination in this revision application is whether the acquisition of a residential accommodation by a wife of a tenant who resides with her husband would be covered by the provisions of Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the "Bombay Rent Act". Section 13(1)(1) reads as under :-

(2.) IN this case the plaintiff-landlord had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 286 of 1984 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.), Ankleshwar, for recovering the possession of a suit house on the ground that the defendant had acquired suitable alternative residential accommodation. Before the trial Court it was the contention of the defendant that he had not acquired any residential accommodation but his wife had built one bungalow in Amrutkunj Society from her own income and that his wife had taken loan of Rs. 25,000/- from Ankleshwar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. that does not mean that he had acquired any suitable residential accommodation or the construction of bungalow in the name of his wife is benami. Both the Courts below arrived at the concurrent finding of fact that the said transaction is not benami and that the wife of the tenant i.e. of the defendant has constructed a bungalow in Amrutkunj Society and that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant is a real owner of the property and that his wife is a benamidar. Both the Courts below, however, held that as the wife of the defendant has built and acquired possession of the premises situated in Amrukunj Society, the defendant is required to be evicted under the provisions of Section 13(1)(1).

(3.) IN this revision application it is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that both the Courts below materially erred in interpreting the provisions of Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rent Act. He submitted that the provisions of Section 13(1)(1) would be applicable only in those cases where the tenant himself has acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence and if his family members build or acquire possession of suitable residence, the provisions of Section 13(1)(1) would not be attracted. It is his further contention that the provisions of Rent Act are for the benefit of tenants and the same should be construed accordingly.