JUDGMENT - Shah A.P., Actg. C.J.:-Whether acquisition of residential premises by a tenant in a different town can per se be considered as an acquisition of suitable residential premises within the meaning of section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short Bombay Rent Act) is the question that is referred to by Karnik J., to the larger Bench for decision.

2. The question arises in the following circumstances.

The 1st petitioner is the tenant of the respondent of the suit premises situated in Mumbai and petitioner No. 2 is his son. The respondent had filed a suit against the petitioners in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai for possession, inter alia on the grounds of bona fide requirement, sub-letting and that petitioner No. 1 had acquired suitable residential premises at Sangli. The ground that the petitioner No. 1 had sublet the premises to his son i.e. petitioner No. 2 was not pressed before the learned Single Judge. The trial Court decreed the suit on both the grounds of bona fide requirement as well as that the petitioner No. 1 had acquired suitable residential premises at Sangli. The Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Bomba

Click Here to Read the rest of this document