NIBILAL FAKIRAHAMAD SHAIKH Vs. SHANKARRAO CHANNAVIRAPPA KIGANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) A decree for eviction under the Rent Act has been passed under section 13 (l) (b) and 13 (1) (1). The judgment of the trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Solapur.

(3.) The question as to whether a ground for eviction under section 13 (1) (1) has been made out can be taken up first. Section 13 (1) (1) operates where the tenant after coming into operation of the Act has built or acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence. The alternative accommodation in the present case admittedly stands in the name of the tenant's wife. The trial Court recorded that the tenant has admitted that he was residing with his wife in a joint family and that his wife was "doing nothing". Presumably by the expression "doing nothing" (which to my mind is inappropriate) what the learned trial Judge meant is that the wife of the tenant had no independent means of her own. With the assistance of the learned Counsel, I have perused the evidence of the tenant to determine whether there was any evidence or admission to that effect. Upon a perusal of the evidence, it does appear that there is no such admission on the part of the tenant as noted by the trial Court. Counsel for the respondent laid emphasis on the statement of the tenant in his examination-in-chief that the livelihood of the family of tenant depended on the shop which was being conducted by the tenant. However, prima facie, it appears that no case was put to the tenant to the effect that the acquisition in the present case was by the tenant himself though in the name of his wife. There was no line of cross-examination on the source of funds through which the premises came to be acquired by the tenant; atleast none has been placed before the Court during the course of the hearing. The appellate Court has not considered the question as whether the acquisition of the premises by the wife of the tenant could be treated as an acquisition by the tenant himself within the meaning of section 13 (1) (1) of the Rent Act.