Case Note & Summary
The petitioner-landlady filed a suit for eviction against the respondent-tenant under the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, on the ground that the tenant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation. The suit premises consisted of a kitchen and one room on the ground floor of a building in Dombivali, Thane, with a monthly rent of Rs. 75. In 1993, the tenant's wife acquired a residential flat admeasuring 504 sq. feet in a building called Laxmi Darshan. The tenant let out that flat to a third party on a monthly rental basis. The landlady issued a notice dated 4/9/1995 demanding possession, and subsequently filed the suit. The trial court (Jt. Civil Judge, J.D., Kalyan) decreed the suit on 7/12/1998, ordering eviction. The tenant appealed to the Additional District Judge, Kalyan, who set aside the trial court's decree on 31/6/2002, dismissing the suit on the ground that the acquisition of the flat by the tenant's wife amounted to acquisition of alternative accommodation by the tenant. The landlady then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The High Court framed the issue of whether acquisition of a flat in the wife's name constitutes acquisition by the tenant under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act. The court noted that the tenant had let out the flat to a third party, indicating that it was not acquired for his own residence. The court held that the acquisition of a flat in the name of the tenant's wife does not amount to acquisition by the tenant himself, and the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's decree. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate order, and restored the trial court's eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Acquisition of Alternative Accommodation - Section 13(1)(l) Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The tenant's wife acquired a flat in her name, which the tenant let out to a third party. The landlord sought eviction on the ground that the tenant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation. The trial court decreed eviction, but the appellate court reversed, holding that acquisition by the wife is acquisition by the tenant. The High Court set aside the appellate order, holding that acquisition of a flat in the wife's name does not amount to acquisition by the tenant himself, and the tenant's act of letting out the flat to a third party indicates that the flat was not acquired for his own residence. The eviction decree was restored. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether acquisition of a residential flat in the name of the tenant's wife constitutes acquisition of suitable alternative accommodation by the tenant under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate court's judgment and order dated 31/6/2002, and restored the trial court's decree of eviction dated 7/12/1998.
Law Points
- Acquisition of alternative accommodation by tenant's spouse does not amount to acquisition by tenant
- Section 13(1)(l) Bombay Rent Act
- 1947
- Eviction decree restored
