J MARATHE Vs. P V KALOKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER acquisition of residential premises by a. tenant in a different town can per se be considered as an acquisition of suitable residential premises within the meaning of section 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging house Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short Bombay rent Act) is the question that is referred to by karnik J. to the larger Bench for decision.

(2.) THE question arises in the following circumstances. The 1st petitioner is the tenant of the respondent of the suit premises situated in Mumbai and petitioner no. 2 is his son. The respondent had filed a suit against the petitioners in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai for possession, inter alia, on the grounds, of bona fide requirement, subletting and that petitioner no. 1 had acquired suitable residential premises at Sangli. The ground that the petitioner no. 1 had sublet the premises to his son i. e. petitioner no. 2 was not pressed before the learned single Judge. The Trial court decreed the suit on both the grounds of bona fide requirement as well as that the petitioner no. 1 had acquired suitable residential premises at sangli. The Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, bombay confirmed the decree for possession on both the grounds. Being aggrieved the tenant filed the present petition which was placed for hearing before Karnik J. The learned Judge noted that the suit premises are situated in the city of Bombay and it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioners or any of them have acquired suitable residential accommodation in Bombay and even in the periphery of Bombay. The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, relying upon a judgment of rebello J. in Rajendraprasad Vs. Shankar; 2002 (3 ). Mh. L. J. 498 contended that even if the tenant has acquired premises in a different town he would be construed to have acquired suitable residential premises within the meaning of section 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act. In the said judgment, the learned single Judge (Rebello J.) has held:

(3.) KARNIK J. noticed that in two earlier judgments of this Court in Madhukar Vs. Smt. Satyabhemabai: 1980 Bom. C. R. 182 and krishnaji Vs. Dr. Shankar Abhyankar: 1965 (LXVII ). Bam. L. R. 690, a different view has been expressed. The aforesaid decisions were not cited before rebello J. Therefore, by a reasoned order, dated 9th June, 2004 Karnik J. referred the matter to the larger Bench.