### Tenant’s Acquisition of Allotted Alternative Residence Extinguishes Rent Act Protection Despite Relative Size or Intention to Occupy

The applicants (tenants) challenged an appellate judgment that ordered their eviction from residential premises in Morbi.

The original suit was filed by the landlords on grounds of arrears of rent and the acquisition of suitable alternative accommodation under the Bombay Rent Act.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 2003, finding no grounds for eviction.

However, the First Appellate Court reversed this in 2006, ruling that while the tenants were not in arrears, the original tenant had been allotted a quarter by the Gujarat Slum Clearance Board, which constituted "suitable alternative accommodation".

The tenants contended that the allotted quarter (one room and a veranda) was insufficient for their large joint family.

1. Whether the tenant/defendants had acquired "suitable residence" within the meaning of Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act.

2. Whether the size and composition of the tenant’s family rendered the allotted alternative accommodation "unsuitable".

The court applied Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which entitles a landlord to recover possession if the tenant has built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted a suitable residence.

The court relied on Hasmukhlal Raichand Shah v. Arvind Mohanlal Kapadia (1988) to establish that "acquisition" is interpreted broadly; if a member of a family unit living together acquires a roof, it may satisfy the statute.

It further cited Srinivas Vaman Karve v. Chandanben Jayantilal Dalal (1973), holding that the tenant’s intention to reside in the new premises is irrelevant; the mere fact of acquisition or allotment is determinative.

The Court noted that the original tenant admitted in cross-examination (Exh. 114) that a quarter was allotted by the Slum Clearance Board in 1986/87.

The Court rejected the applicants' argument regarding the "suitability" of the new premises based on family size.

It reasoned that since the allotted quarter was substantially similar in dimensions to the current tenanted premises (one room, oshari, and latrine), the tenant could not claim the new space was inadequate while simultaneously occupying a similar-sized rented space.

Following Manjulaben Bhikhabhai Sikligar v. Gayatriben Mohitkumar Soni, the Court emphasized that once acquisition of a residence is proved, the burden shifts to the tenant to prove non-suitability, and the law does not require the tenant to have actually shifted to the new premises to trigger eviction.

It held that the allotment of the Slum Clearance Board quarter constituted acquisition of suitable residence under Section 13(1)(l), thereby lifting the tenant's protection from eviction.

Exercising limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 29(2), the Court found no jurisdictional error.

However, on equitable grounds, the Court granted the tenants 16 weeks to vacate the premises, subject to filing an undertaking and clearing any rent arrears.