Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, tenants, challenged the judgment and order of the lower appellate court dated 25th October 1993, which dismissed their appeal and confirmed the trial court's decree dated 5th October 1991 directing them to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondents. The suit premises were Block No. 2, 'Anupam', situated at 777 Tilak Road, Dadar, Bombay. The original plaintiff (landlord) had filed the suit for possession against the original tenant, Vasant G. Thakur (defendant No.1), and his sister-in-law, Mrs. Rajani Talwalkar (defendant No.2), on two grounds: (i) the tenant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation, and (ii) the tenant had sublet the premises to defendant No.2. The plaintiff's case was based on the fact that the 1st defendant was an Under Secretary to the State Government and was given government accommodation, being Govt. Bungalow No.7, Opp. Sachivalaya, and was required to shift to the said bungalow along with his family members in June 1973. Upon the death of the original 1st defendant in 1990, the present petitioners were brought on record as legal heirs. The original defendant No.1 had stated in his evidence that defendant No.1b (first petitioner) was staying with the tenant since 1958 continuously as a member of his family. The trial court decreed the suit on the ground that the 1st defendant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation and had sublet the premises. The lower appellate court confirmed the decree. The High Court, after hearing counsel and perusing the record, found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, confirming the eviction order.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Acquisition of Suitable Alternative Accommodation - Section 13(1)(l) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord sought eviction on the ground that the tenant, an Under Secretary to the State Government, had acquired a government bungalow as suitable alternative accommodation. The tenant admitted shifting to the bungalow with family. The court held that the tenant's acquisition of government accommodation constituted suitable alternative accommodation, and the tenant failed to prove that the suit premises were still required for his family. (Paras 1-3) B) Rent Control - Eviction - Subletting - Section 13(1)(e) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord alleged that the tenant sublet the premises to his sister-in-law. The tenant's evidence showed that the sister-in-law was staying since 1958 as a family member. The court held that the tenant failed to prove that the sister-in-law was a member of his family, and the subletting was established. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation and whether the premises were sublet, justifying eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the eviction order passed by the trial court and upheld by the lower appellate court.
Law Points
- Acquisition of suitable alternative accommodation
- Subletting
- Bona fide need
- Burden of proof on tenant
- Eviction decree
