PRAMILA MADHAV DAMLE Vs. WAMAN R KOPARDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a tenant. A suit bearing No. R. A. E. Suit No. 5467 of 1969, was filed against him by the respondent landlord for eviction on three grounds namely bona fide requirement, alternative accommodation and sub-letting. It appears from the records that the last ground of sub-letting has been given up at the time of hearing by the trial Court. On examining the materials and evidence adduced before the trial Court, the suit of the respondent was dismissed. The respondent filed appeal against the trial Courts order being Appeal No. 226 of 1981. The Appellate Court set aside the trial Courts order and the ground of alternative accommodation was found in favour of the landlord respondent and decree of eviction was passed against the petitioner by judgement dated 6/7-9-1995. It is in this circumstances, that the matter came up before this Court by way of this writ petition.

(2.) IT is disclosed from the record that the tenanted premises consisting of three rooms was originally belonged to the petitioner. In the year 1949, the petitioner sold the entire premises to the respondents and he had retained one room in his possession as tenant of the respondent. Therefore, from the year 1949, the petitioner was staying with his family in one room which was retained by him as a tenant; Both the courts found that there is an acquisition of accommodation by the wife of the petitioner in the year 1968. It has also come out in the evidence that acquisition was made by the wife of the petitioner out of her own funds. It has also come out that all other family members except the petitioner, shifted to the new accommodation acquired by the wife. The Lower appellate Court has found that the acquisition by the wife of the alternative accommodation will give cause of action to the respondent to seek eviction of the petitioner on the ground of section 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act, namely the acquisition of alternative accommodation. Section 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act, reads as follows :

(3.) RELYING on the decision of the Supreme Court in (B. R. Mehta v. Atma Devi and others), reported in 1987 (4) Supreme Court Cases 183. The Lower appellate Court found that the petitioner has acquired alternative accommodation as envisaged under section 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act. On following the said decision and also on examination of the case records, it can be found that the lower appellate Court has misapplied the decision. In fact the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement in para 4 has held thus :