A tenant’s admitted acquisition of suitable alternative accommodation supports eviction absent proof of unsuitability.

The landlord filed an eviction suit against the tenant on grounds of unauthorised permanent construction and acquisition of suitable alternative accommodation. The trial court found the second ground proved and decreed eviction; the appellate court dismissed the tenant’s appeal, leaving concurrent findings against the tenant.

In revision under Section 29(2) of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the tenant disputed the proof of alternative accommodation and challenged the landlord’s title on the basis that the registered sale deed was contested in a separate suit.

Whether the concurrent finding that the tenant acquired suitable alternative accommodation under Section 13(1)(l) of the Rent Act warranted interference in revision.

Whether the tenant’s challenge to the landlord’s registered sale deed provided a basis to set aside the eviction decree.

Section 13(1)(l) of the Rent Act provides a ground for eviction where the tenant has acquired suitable alternative accommodation; suitability is assessed on the facts and circumstances, and acquisition alone is not decisive.

Section 29(2) confers revisional jurisdiction, which does not permit reappreciation of factual findings unless they are perverse or grossly erroneous, as stated in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78.

Under Section 29A, the Rent Court has no jurisdiction to decide title disputes.

The court also relied on Shamjibhai Bhudarbhai v. Tidiben Harjibhai Naranbhai Parmar concerning the Rent Court’s jurisdiction, and Hemalatha (D) by LRs v. Tukaram (D) by LRs, 2026 (0) AIR (SC) 615, for the stated presumption of validity and genuineness attaching to a registered sale deed.

It also referred to Vishnubhai Natverlal Barot v. Manharlal Muljibhai Barot, CRA No. 43 of 2010, decided 7 April 2010, on alternative accommodation and the limits of revisional interference.

The tenant’s cross-examination contained an admission that he had purchased another property, and both lower courts found that the alternative accommodation was suitable; the tenant had not established cogent evidence that it was unsuitable.

The High Court found no perversity or gross error in those concurrent factual findings.

As to title, the challenge to the sale deed was not for the Rent Court to determine; the deed remained registered and the separate challenge had not resulted in a decree setting it aside. The court further noted that the title issue had not been pressed before the lower courts or framed as an issue.

It dismissed the revision application in limine, refused the tenant’s request to suspend the order while pursuing a higher forum, made no order as to costs, and disposed of the connected stay application.