Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute between the legal representatives of the original defendant-tenant (petitioners) and the legal representatives of the original plaintiff-landlord (respondents) concerning a residential premises. The original plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on grounds of bonafide requirement and acquisition of suitable residence. The specific allegation was that the original tenant, Balu Laxman Sonar, had purchased a plot of land measuring 35' x 35' in the name of his wife, Tarabai, and constructed rooms on it, and that he and his wife were residing in the newly constructed house, keeping the suit premises closed for about one and a half years. The trial court dismissed the suit. The appellate court reversed the decision and decreed eviction. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the appellate court's conclusion that the tenant had acquired a suitable residence was based on surmises and conjectures. The High Court noted that the plot was purchased in the wife's name, and there was no evidence that the tenant had any legal right to occupy the newly constructed house. The tenant had only stated that his wife had purchased the plot and constructed rooms, and that he was residing there. The High Court held that the landlord must prove that the tenant has acquired a suitable residence, meaning a place where he has a legal right to reside. The appellate court's finding was not supported by evidence, and the petition was allowed, setting aside the decree for eviction.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Acquisition of Suitable Residence - Section 13(1)(l) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord sought eviction on the ground that the tenant had acquired a suitable residence by purchasing a plot in his wife's name and constructing rooms. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court decreed eviction. The High Court held that mere purchase of a plot and construction of rooms does not automatically constitute acquisition of a suitable residence; the landlord must prove that the tenant has a legal right to occupy the newly constructed premises as a residence. The appellate court's finding was based on surmises and conjectures, and the petition was allowed. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the purchase of a plot of land in the name of the tenant's wife and construction of rooms thereon amounts to acquisition of a suitable residence within the meaning of Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate court's decree of eviction, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit.
Law Points
- Acquisition of suitable residence
- burden of proof
- bonafide requirement
- Section 13(1)(l) Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
