( 1 ) THE facts relevant to this tenants revision application filed under sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) may be stated in brief as under.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the premises in question and was in actual occupation thereof the sometime before he was served With a notice Exhibit 27 dated 1/08/1973. By this notice his tenancy was terminated on the ground that he had acquired suitable residence in Saikrupa Co-operative Housing Society Limited within the meaning of clause (1) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 13 of the Act and that he had sublet the demised premises to Indubhai Brahmabhat Opponent No. 2 herein. On receipt of the notice Exhibit 27. the tenant sent a reply dated 31/08/1973. Exhibit 73 wherein he stated that he had gone to live in the bungalow of his friend temporarily for a change and that no consideration was paid for his occupation of the said bungalow and that he had not parted with the possession of the demised premises in favour of Indubhai whom his wife treated as a brother. On receipt of this reply the landlord instituted the suit in question which was dismissed her the learned trial Judge by his order dated 1/10/1976. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the tenant had transferred or assigned his interest in the demised premises to Indubhai or that the tenant had acquired alternative suitable residential accommediation within the meaning of sec. 13 (1) (1) of the Act. Therefore in the view of the learned trial Judge neither of the two grounds advanced by the landlord for an eviction decree against the tenant was established. He therefore. dismissed he suit with costs.

( 3 ) THE landlord feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge preferred an appeal. being Regular Civil Appeal No. 163 of 1976 in the Court of the learned District Judge Mehsana. The learned District Judge on an appreciation of evidence placed on record both documentary and oral came to the conclusion that both the grounds were established and accordingly allowed the appeal and passed a decree in ejectment against the original tenant as well as the sub-tenant. It is against this decree passed by the learned District Judge that the present revision application is preferred.

( 4 ) SEC. 13 (1) (1) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act but subject to the provisions of sec. 15. with which we are not concerned. the landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that the tenant after the coming into operation of the Act has built acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence. It is not the case of the landlord that the tenant has built any residential premises for his occupation. The case put up was that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of the bungalow situate in Saikrupa Co-operative Housing Society. Limited belonging to one Jagjivandas Babulal Brahmbhatt. It is clear from the postal acknowledgment Exhibit 28 that the notice Exhibit 27 was served on the tenant at the said bungalow. The tenant has also deposed that he had shifted to the bungalow about 15 or 20 days before the receipt of the notice Exhibit 27 Therefore the fact that he and his wife were living in the bungalow on the date of service of the notice Exhibit 27 is not a dispute. Even in the reply Exhibit 29 the tenant had clearly stated that since he was not keeping well he had gone for a change to his friends bungalow temporarily. He had also stated that no rent was charged by his friend from him and that he was allowed to stay in the bungalow ex gratia. In his cross-examination he had stated that both he and his wife were suffering from tuberculosis and hence they had gone for a change to the bungalow of his friend but there was no animus to permanently shift from the demised premises to the said bungalow.