PRABHAKAR TATYARAO MANGALKAR Vs. SURESH KISHANRAO TAKALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this revision application relates to the scope of Section 15(2)(v) of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 ("the Act" for short).

(2.) THE facts may be briefly stated :-

(3.) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned District Jude has not followed the order of remand made by the High Court inasmuch as he failed to consider certain facts which were narrated by the High Court in para 6 of its judgment. He contended that the consideration of goodwill and comparison of certain factor such as suitability and environment matters must also be considered while deciding whether the tenant has secured alternative accommodation or not. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the High Court has specifically stated that the appellate Court should consider the nature of the residential or business accommodation originally available to the petitioner and to compare the same with the new accommodation which the tenant acquired. It is urged that this was not done by the learned District Judge and so the order is vitiated by reason of non-compliance with the direction of the High Court.