Ramagauri Girdharlal vs Narottam Narandas

M.P. Thakkar, J.—A startling proposition has been canvassed by the petitioner-landlord with his eyes glued on Section 13(1)(1) of the

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act). ""If a tenant in town X acquires

vacant possession of premises in a different town, Y, and if the premises are suitable for residence"" says Counsel for the landlord with confidence,

he is liable to eviction u/s 13(1)(1) of the Act.

The provision in question in so far as material, reads as under:

13(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act (but subject to the provisions of Section 15, a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession

of any premises if the Court is satisfied-

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

(L) that the tenant after the coming into operation of this Act has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence.

The Rent Act is made applicable to towns in which there is acute scarcity of housing accommodation in order to extend protection to the

tenants. Section 13(1)(1) empowers the Court to pass a decree for eviction where the tenant acquires or is allotted vacant possession of suitable

premises for the reason which effortlessly leaps to the eye, namely, that the tenant is no more in need of the amount of Rent Act in view of such

acquisition or allotment of vacant possession of suitable residence-why should the law deny to the landlord the right to the possession of his own

property if the tenant is in no need of such protection? Evidently, that is the rationale of the provision embodied in Section 13(1)(1). It, however,

postulates that the alternative accommodation is in the same town in which the rented premises are located. It would be an exercise in non-reason

to authorise eviction even if the so called alternative premises are situated in a different town. Surely a tenant in Ahmedabad cannot be evicted

merely because he purchases a suitable residential house property and acquires vacant possession thereof in Moscow or for that matter in

Madras? The calculated design of the legislature is to afford protection to tenants townwise where housing shortage exists. And the need for

protection does not disappear if alternative premises are acquired at a place other than in that particular town while it would disappear if such

accommodation is acquired in that very town. Even vivid imagination cannot make one accept the proposition cavassed on behalf of the landlord.

Section 13(1)(1) cannot apply where the tenant acquires or is allotted vacant possession of premises elsewhere than in the town of the rented

premises. The aforesaid construction is so self evident that it is not necessary to demonstrate its truth by taxing the reasoning faculty any further. In

the present case, the tenant, a poor railway employee who was occupying rented premises at Rajkot, was staying at Surendranagar for some time

and at Mehsana thereafter on account of his transfer. On admitted facts, the plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to a decree. If at all, the landlord can

claim possession of the premises in case the tenant does not use the premises for a continuous period of six months without reasonable cause,

within the meaning of Section 13(1)(k). Decree is, however, claimed u/s 13(1)(1) not u/s 13(1)(k) of the Rent Act. The landlord must accordingly

fail even if the evidence is accepted at its face value. Besides, the learned Trial Judge was right in forming the opinion that even the premises which

were offered to the respondent-tenant at Mehsana and Surendranagar were not suitable for his residence. This is a pure question of fact and the

High Court cannot interfere therewith u/s 29(2) of the Rent Act. There is no substance in the petition. It fails and is rejected, Rule is discharged

with costs.