Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.- Scarcity of accommodation creates problems of misery which it is beyond this Court to solve except in some marginal, clumsy way. We mention this by way of prefatory observation because we are, in this case, faced with a situation where the facts are not too clear, the law has been ill-understood and the justice of the situation may justify a decision either way.

2. The landlords-respondents had let out to the first appellant, for the benefit of the joint family of which he was a senior member, the suit premises consisting of three rooms. A suit for eviction was filed on the ground of sub-letting based on the fact that the 1st appellant had built a large house into which he had moved leaving the second appellant still in the suit premises. The Court found that there was no case of sub-letting and dismissed the suit. This did not end the story but gave rise to a fresh litigation which has spiralled to this Court now. The second litigation was for eviction under S. 13 (1) (1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). The foundation for the action was that the first appellant had built a large house for t