( 1 ) THE only question which calls for determination in this revision application is whether the acquisition of a residential accommodation by a wife of a tenant who resides with her husband would be coveted by the provisions of Sec. 13 (1) (1) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act. Section 13 (1) (1) reads as under:"13 (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 (1) that the tenant after coming into operation of that Act has built acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence. "

( 2 ) IN this case the plaintiff-landlord had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 286 of 1984 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J. D.) Ankleshwar for recovering the possession of a suit house on the ground that the defendant had acquired suitable alternative residential accommodation. Before the trial Court it was the contention of the defendant that he had not acquired any residential accommodation but his wife had built one bungalow in Amrutkunj Society from her own income and that his wife had taken loan of Rs. 25 0 from Ankleshwar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. that does not mean that he had acquired any suitable residential accommodation or the construction of bungalow in the name of his wife is benami. Both the Courts below arrived at the concurrent finding of fact that the said transaction is not benami and that the wife of the tenant i. e. of the defendant has constructed a bungalow in Amrutkunj Society and that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant is a real owner of the property and that his wife is a benamidar. Both the Courts below however held that as the wife of the defendant has built and acquired possession of the premises situated in Amrutkunj Society the defendant is required to be evicted under the provisions of Sec. 13 (1) (1 ).

( 3 ) BOTH the Courts relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of V. I. Malhotra and Anr. v. Smt. Ranjit Kaur 1985 RCJ 250. In that case also it was the contention of the tenant that his wife had acquired other accommodation. The Delhi High Court relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Chand and Anr. v. Sher Singh 1981 DRJ 287 held that the finding of the authority below that the tenant has acquired possession of the premises through his wife and therefore the requirement of clause (h) to the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 14 of the Act was complied which was proper. The entire Supreme Court judgment which was relied upon and was quoted by the Delhi High Court reads as under:" I am afraid the Supreme Court was very much conscious of the provisions of the aforesaid clause (h) to the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 14 of the Act and the Judgment of the Supreme Court is based while applying that provision. It is not an obiter as I would like to quote the entire judgment of that case which reads; Y. V. CHANDRACHUD C. J. The respondent tenant is out of possession since 9/10/1976 He was dispossessed during the pendency of the appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The respondents son is a business executive who was at one time allotted a flat by his employers. On 12/12/1980 the respondents wife purchased a flat at Saket from the Delhi Development Authority at a cost of about Rs. 1,20,000 The flat is available to the respondent though his explanation is that it has been let out by his wife to their son. The respondent has now no case to be put back in possession of the flat in dispute. We had allowed the appellants to amend their application for possession by pleading that the respondent has acquired possession of a vacant residence within the meaning of Sec. 14 (1) (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 The respondent has filed his reply to the amended application. Having considered the averments of the part