Ownership of Multiple Superior Alternate Accommodations by Tenant Warrants Eviction Under Section 13(1)(l) of Rent Act.

The applicants (legal heirs of the original tenant) challenged a concurrent eviction decree passed by the Trial Court (17.02.1998) and the District Court, Navsari (09.12.2004) under the Bombay Rent Act.

The landlord sought eviction from a 100 sq. ft. rented room and kitchen on the grounds that the tenant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation.

Evidence showed the tenant owned two properties: a flat at Vaibhav Apartments (825 sq. ft.) and a multi-story building at Vishnu Nivas (450 sq. ft.).

The tenant contended the flat was occupied by her son due to strained relations and the other property was used for a lodging business, though no evidence supported these claims.

1. Whether the tenant had acquired suitable and alternate residential accommodation within the meaning of Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act.

2. Whether the findings of the lower courts regarding the suitability and acquisition of premises were perverse or legally erroneous so as to warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction.

The court applied Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which permits eviction if the tenant has built, acquired, or been allotted suitable residence.

It relied on the Constitutional Bench decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh (2014), which restricts the High Court’s revisional power under Section 29(2) of the Act to checking the "legality, propriety, or correctness" of an order rather than re-appreciating evidence as a court of first appeal.

It further distinguished Harish Veljibhai Joshi v. Jitendra Veljibhai Joshi (2003) and Anandi D. Jadhav v. Nirmala Ramchandra Kore (2000), noting that acquisition of property by a spouse or son does not constitute acquisition by the tenant unless the tenant has a legal right to that property.

The Court observed that the acquisition and ownership of the two alternative properties by the tenant and her late husband (of whom she became absolute owner) were undisputed facts.

The Court found that the Vaibhav Apartment flat was five times larger than the rented premises and equipped with better amenities.

Applying the Dilbahar Singh principle, the Court held that since the lower courts had exhaustively analyzed the evidence—including the manipulated ration cards used to suggest family separation—the findings were not perverse.

The Court rejected the tenant’s reliance on precedents regarding property owned by family members, as here the tenant herself held absolute title to the new premises.

Finding no procedural illegality or gross error in the lower courts' judgments, the Court dismissed the Revision Application and vacated all interim reliefs. Rule discharged.