( 1 ) THE petitioner landlady has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge judgment and order dated 31 st June, 2002, passed by the Additional district Judge, Kalyan, (Appellate Court), whereby judgment and decree passed by the jt. Civil Judge, J. D. Kalyan (trial court), dated 7th December, 1998 was set aside. Resultantly, the petitioner-landlady's suit stood dismissed on the ground of acquisition of alternative suitable accommodation for residence as contemplated under the Bombay Rent. Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short 'bombay Rent Act' ). Therefore, the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE suit premises consist of kitchen and one room on the ground floor of manorama Niwas Raghuvir Nagar, Dombivali (E ). District Thane. The monthly tenancy was at the rate of Rs. 75/- exclusive of Municipal taxes and permitted increases. Some time in the year 1993, the respondent-tenant has acquired residential Flat admeasuring 504 sq. feet, bearing No. 8, on the first floor of the building known as "laxmi Darshan' opposite akshay Hospital, near Shrikhande Wadi, dombivali (East), District Thane. The said flat admittedly, is in the name of wife of the tenant, somnath. By notice dated, 4/9/1995, as the respondent let out the said flat to one Shri. L. D. Sarkar on monthly rental basis demanded the premises. The petitioner replied but did not hand over the premises. Petitioner-landlady therefore, filed a suit in the Court, on a foundation of the acquisition of the alternative accommodation by the respondent in the name of his wife Smt. Alka Somnath Rane. The suit was filed on 13th november, 1995. By the written statement, dated 7th October, 1996, the respondent-tenant resisted the same.

( 3 ) THE parties led their evidence. Respondent did not step in the witness box. On behalf of the respondent, his wife Smt. Alka led evidence. Petitioner's husband being constituted Power of Attorney, supported the case. The trial Court, after considering the material placed on the record, by the order dated 7th December, 1998 decreed the suit. The appeal preferred therefore, was allowed by the appellate Court and set aside the trial Court's judgment and decree.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsel, Ms. Gauri Godse, appearing for the petitioner and mr. M. S. Lagu, appearing for the respondent. There is no doubt in the present case, even as per the allegations of the landlord that the respondent tenant has acquired the flat in the name of his wife. There is a sufficient material on the record to justify the ownership of the premises in the name of his wife Smt. Alka rane, since 1993. As already referred above, the suit was filed on 13th November, 1995. The acquired premises in question has been admittedly let out to one Mr. L. D. Sarkar by the petitioner or his wife.

( 5 ) THERE is nothing on the record to justify, and prove that the said property has been purchased by the respondent-tenant from his own funds. There is material on the record to justify that the said property has been gifted by the Father-in-law of the petitioner-tenant to his daughter. The property is admittedly in the name of the wife of the tenant. The question is whether the acquisition of the premises in question that itself is sufficient to grant a decree for possession of the premises to the petitioner- landlady, aged 75 years. As noted already, the respondent defendant did not depose in support of his averments and the twin test that it was not his acquisition and secondly, even if it was, it could not be said to be the 'suitable residence' as contemplated under the Act. Petitioner lead the evidence through his wife only.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 2016 (Ganpat Ram Sharma and others Vs. Smt. Gayatri Devi); (B. R. Mehta Vs. Atma devi), AIR 1987 (4) SC 1837; 1988 (2) ALL india Rent Control Act 573 (Hasmukhala raichand Shah Vs. Arvindbhai Mohanlal kapadia) (Gujrat); 1990 Mah. R. C. J