ANOOP. V. MOHTA, J.

( 1 ) THE Petitioner-tenant has invoked Article 227 of the constitution of India and sought to challenge the judgment and order dated 23rd July 1997, passed by the Additional District Judge, palghar (for short "appellate Court"), whereby, the judgment and decree of the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 1987 dated 6th July, 1993, was set aside and the respondent-landlords suit for possession on the ground of securing alternative accommodation by the tenant as contemplated under Section 13 (1) (1) of the bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates control Act, 1947 (for short the Bombay rent Act") has been allowed. Therefore, the present Writ Petition.

( 2 ) SINCE 1963, the petitioner-tenant is in occupation of one room admeasuring 7 X 10. As it was difficult for the petitioner to accommodate all five of his family members, he acquired another premises of two rooms specially for the education and residence of his son and daughter near the suit premises, on rent. The respondent-landlady had full knowledge of the same. After more than 12 years i. e. on 19th January, 1987, a notice on that foundation was issued and the landlady demanded the possession. On 21st March, 1987, a Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 1987 was filed for possession on the ground of acquisition of suitable accommodation. The same was resisted by a Written statement dated 15th March, 1988. Evidence was led by the parties. There remained no dispute on the basis of evidence itself that no action was initiated by the respondent-landlady at any time, including any objection for the acquisition of such premises The Trial Court, therefore, after considering the material and the evidence on the record, dismissed the Suit In the appeal preferred by the respondent-plaintiff, the Appellate Court, however, accepted the respondents case and reversed the Trial courts order and granted the decree for possession on that ground

( 3 ) HEARD Mr Paradkar, Counsel for the petitioner None appeared for the respondent At the request of the respondent-landlady aged 80 years, the matter was placed on the Board for final hearing It was adjourned on 25th July, 2005 and also on 8th august, 2005 None appeared for the respondent

( 4 ) SECTION 13 (1) (1) of the Bombay Rents, hotel 86 Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short "the Bombay Rent Act"), as relevant for the purpose of the present Writ petition, is reproduced as under"13 (1) (1) that the tenant after the coming into operation of this Act has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence "

( 5 ) IN the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner tenant has acquired the possession of two rooms and he has been in possession of the same since 1974 the submission is that the said acquisition of the additional premises has been for the growing family of the petitioner and, therefore, such additional accommodation by the tenant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be a ground as contemplated under the Bombay Rent Act the basic submission appears to be that even if there is an acquisition of the premises by the present petitioner, that cannot be said to be "suitable" as contemplated under the Bombay Rent Act The word "suitable" is not defined under the bombay Rent Act. In absence of such positive definition, it is necessary to consider the Scheme of the Bombay Rent Act so far as the ground of acquisition of vacant possession of suitable residence by the tenant

( 6 ) THE first and important burden in the present case, so far as the landlady is concerned, remained undisputed in view of the admitted position that the tenant has acquired two room premises The second im portant aspect is for the tenant to prove that the said premises is not suitable for the residence purpose as contemplated under the act The counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on (Prabhakar Raghunathdixit v B S Kothare), 76 Bom L R 240 wherein bombay High Court, af