( 1 ) THIS revision application raises a short question of law as to whether the provisions of sec. 13 (2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) are applicable to a case where a trustee of a public charitable trust asks for possession of the premises from a tenant on the ground that he requires it for occupation for the purposes of the trust. The opponents are the trustees of a public trust namely Maniar Jamat at Ahmedabad. The suit premises originally belonged to one Bai Amina daughter of Jusab Mohamed and she gave the land by way of gift to a public Trust named Maniar Jamat to make a Madresa and Jamatkhana. The opponents have brought the suit for possession of the premises from the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the premises are required for the trust. The petitioner contested the character of the opponents as his landlord and also disputed the claim of the opponents for possession. The learned trial Judge found in favour of the opponents about their requirement of the promises for the purposes of the trust. The learned trial Judge observed that the question of comparative hardship mentioned in sec. 13 (2) of the Rent Act need not be considered in such a case. He accordingly passed a decree evicting the defendant from the suit premises.

( 2 ) IN the appeal filed by the petitioner the appellate Court upheld the finding of the trial Judge that the plaintiffs required the suit premises for the purposes of the trust. That court also held that question of application of the provisions of sec. 13 (2) of the Rent Act relating to comparative hardship did not arise for decision in this case. Accordingly the appellate Court confirmed the decree for possession passed by the trial Court against the petitioner.

( 3 ) IN this revision application by the petitioner the only point raised before us was that both the courts below were in error in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of sec. 13 (2) of the Rent Act do not apply to a case of this nature. It is clear from the record of the case that this question of comparative hardship has not been considered by either of the courts below and if the contention of the petitioner were to be upheld the matter will have to be remanded back to the trial Court for a decision on that question.

( 4 ) CLAUSE (g) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 13 of the Rent Act reads as follows:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of sec. 15 a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied: -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (g) that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by himself or by any person for whose benefit the premises are held or where the landlord is a trustee of a public charitable trust that the premise are required for occupation for the purpose of the trust. The words underlined Italics in clause (g) above were added to the original clause (g) by the Amending Act No. 61 of 1953.

( 5 ) SUB-SEC. (2) of sec. 13 of the Rent Act reads as follows:- (2) No decree for eviction shall be passed on the ground specified in clause (g) of sub-sec. (1) if the Court is satisfied that having regard to all the circumstance of the case including the question whether other reasonable accommodation is available for the landlord or the tenant greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it.

( 6 ) SEC. 5 (3) of the Rent Act defines the term landlord as including a trustee.

( 7 ) THE argument on behalf of the petitioner is that the word landlord used in sec. 13 (2) of the Rent Act includes a trustee in respect of a trust property given on rent and therefore the claim for possession under clause (g) of sec. 13 (1) by such a trustee is also subject to the prohibition contained in sec. 13 (2) of the Rent Act. The argument therefore is that in case of a claim for possession by a t