Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, tenants and legal representatives of the original tenant, challenged the eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. The landladies had instituted Suit No. 2150 of 1982 seeking eviction on two grounds: (1) that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of a suitable residence under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and (2) that the suit premises were reasonably and bona fide required by the landladies for their personal occupation under Section 13(1)(g). The trial court decreed eviction on both grounds, and the appeal was dismissed. The High Court examined the submissions of the petitioners' counsel, Mr. Surana, who argued that the acquisition of alternate residences was by the tenant's sons, not by the tenant himself, and thus the ground under Section 13(1)(l) was not made out. The High Court agreed, noting that the decisions in Amrut Vishnu Keskar vs. Bhaskar Trimbak Gokhale and Shankar Nana Waychal & Ors. vs. Mohan Ganesh Date & Anr. support the proposition that acquisition by sons cannot be attributed to the tenant. The High Court also found that the appellate court had not considered the ground under Section 13(1)(g) and the mandatory comparative hardship under Section 13(2). Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition in part, setting aside the eviction order on the ground under Section 13(1)(l) and remanding the matter to the appellate court for fresh consideration of the ground under Section 13(1)(g) along with the comparative hardship under Section 13(2).
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Acquisition of Alternate Residence - Section 13(1)(l) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(l) requires that the tenant himself has acquired vacant possession of a suitable residence. Acquisition by the tenant's sons, even in a joint family, cannot be attributed to the tenant unless it is shown that the acquisition was for the benefit of the tenant or the tenant had control over the property. The courts below erred in holding that the ground was made out based on acquisition by the sons. (Paras 5-8) B) Rent Control - Eviction - Reasonable and Bona Fide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) and Section 13(2) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The trial court and appeal court decreed eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) but failed to consider the comparative hardship as required under Section 13(2). The appellate court's judgment did not address this aspect, and the High Court found that the requirement of considering comparative hardship was mandatory. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on this ground. (Paras 9-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether acquisition of alternate suitable residence by the sons of the tenant can be attributed to the tenant for eviction under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and whether the courts below erred in not considering the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) and comparative hardship under Section 13(2).
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition in part. The eviction order on the ground under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was set aside. The matter was remanded to the appellate court for fresh consideration of the ground under Section 13(1)(g) along with the comparative hardship under Section 13(2) of the Act.
Law Points
- Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947 requires acquisition of alternate suitable residence by the tenant himself
- not by his sons or family members
- Joint family status does not automatically attribute acquisition by sons to the tenant
- Eviction on ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) requires consideration of comparative hardship under Section 13(2)
