( 1 ) THE next contention relates to the interpretation of clause (1 ). It was urged relying upon the word residence in clause (1) that the landlord in order to succeed in a suit falling under clause (1) should establish that the vacant possession of another house was acquired by the tenant with the intention of having his permanent abode in that house. If this intention was not there. clause (1) would not be applicable. It was pointed out that the words residence is used in clause (1) and not the words residential premises. According to the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioners if the latter words were used then mere act of acquiring vacant possession of a suitable premises would entitle the landlord to a decree for ejectment irrespective of the question of intention with which vacant possession was acquired by the tenant. It was pointed out by way of an illustration that a tenant may be doing business of purchasing and selling residential premises-vacant or otherwise In such a case he has no intention to go and reside in the vacant premises purchased by him. His intention in the act of purchase and in the act of acquiring vacant possession of the p