HASTIMAL NAYANMAL JAIN Vs. DATTATRAYA SAYANNA TOTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 457 of 1989. By that order the learned District Judge has allowed the Appeal filed by the respondent and has passed a decree of eviction against the petitioner/tenant. The decree has been passed against the tenant on the ground that he has acquired alternate accommodation. It appears that an amendment was carried in the plaint during the pendency of the Appeal before the learned District Judge.

(2.) IT was the case of the plaintiff/landlord that the tenant during the pendency of Appeal had acquired residential accommodation being Flat No. 22. After the plaintiff was allowed to amend his plaint, it appears that the tenant had filed his Written Statement. The parties also led evidence. The Court after appreciating the evidence found that the plaintiff has established that the tenant has acquired alternate accommodation.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the tenant/petitioner submitted that Flat No. 22 was not acquired by the tenant, but was acquired by the uncle. In the submission of the learned Counsel as the Flat No. 22 was not at all acquired by the tenant, it cannot be termed as an alternate accommodation.