(1.) The Additional District Judge at Kalyan, allowed an appeal preferred by the landlord against the decision of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, by which the landlord's suit for eviction came to be dismissed. While allowing the appeal, the Appellate Court has held that a ground for eviction has been made out under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Rates (Control) Act, 1947. The ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(l) is that the tenant after coming into operation of the Act has "built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence".
(2.) The premises in question consist of a one room tenement, being Block No.8 of a property known as Amarprem Building situated at Subhash Road, Vishnu Nagar, Dombivli (West). A suit for eviction was instituted in 1992 on the ground of (i) Default in the payment of rent; (ii) Nuisance; and (iii) The tenant acquiring suitable alternative residential accommodation. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Judge on 7th December 1996. The evidence would show that the tenant had four sons. One of the sons who was married had been accommodated in the alternative accommodation which was a small tenement consisting of one room and a kitchen. The Trial Court was of the view that the alternative premises were being used for providing residential accommodation to the married son of the tenant. That being a small one room kitchen tenement, the Trial Court was of the view that it could not be said to be suitable for the family of the tenant. The finding of the Trial Court was reversed by the Appellate Court on 1st March 2001. The Appellate Court was of the view that while the alternative accommodation was acquired in the name of the wife of the tenant, it was not the case of the tenant that she had any independent source of income. The Court was of the view that the tenant had not made out a case that the alternative premises were not suitable for the purposes of his family and an increase in the size of the family could not be a ground to hold that the alternative accommodation held by the tenant was not suitable. A decree for eviction was accordingly passed.
(3.) On behalf of the Petitioner, the Judgment and Order of the District Court has been questioned principally on the following grounds: (i) Under Section 13(1)(l), the acquisition must be by the tenant and the acquisition has to be of suitable residential accommodation; (ii) As a matter of fact, the accommodation in the present case was acquired by the wife of the tenant and not by the tenant as defined by Section 5(11) of the Rent Act; (iii) There was absolutely no evidence on the part of the landlord that would suggest that the cost of acquisition had been paid by the tenant himself, nor was any cross-examination carried out of the tenant during the course of the evidence to establish such a case; and (iv) In any event, having regard to the family of the tenant and its requirement, the alternative accommodation cannot be regarded as being suitable within the meaning of Section 13(1)(l).