( 1 ) THIS is a revision application filed by the original defendant of HRP Suit No. 2658 of 1991. The respondents herein are the original plaintiffs of the aforesaid suit. The petitioner-tenant was given on rent the premises, which is a bungalow, situated in Navrangpura area in the City of Ahmedabad, known as "chandramouli Bungalow". The said premises is consisting of four blocks, out of which the defendant was given on rent one block, situated on the first floor, on western side, which is bearing Survey No. 377/3/4. The plaintiff instituted the said suit for getting a decree for possession as provided by the Rent Act on the ground that the defendant is in arrears of rent as well as on the ground that after taking the rented premises, subsequently, the tenant has acquired suitable alternative accommodation and that, on that ground, he is required to be evicted from the suit premises.

( 2 ) THE defendant denied the said suit by filing Written Statement, Exhibit 15. He denied the claim of the plaintiff for getting a decree for possession on the ground of arrears of rent as well as on the ground of acquisition of suitable alternative accommodation. It is the say of the tenant in the written statement that he has not purchased or acquired any alternative premises, as suggested by the plaintiff in the plaint, either in his name or in the name of his wife or in the name of his son, and in the written statement, it is stated that he is residing in the suit premises, along with his wife and son.

( 3 ) THE trial court, thereafter, framed various issues at Exhibit 17. Issue No. 2, which is framed by the trial court, is in connection with the acquisition of suitable and sufficient residence by the defendant-tenant. Both the sides led appropriate evidence on all the issues framed by the trial court. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record and after hearing both the sides, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his case regarding acquisition of alternative accommodation by the tenant. On the aforesaid ground, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession. The trial court also passed a decree to pay Rs. 15,833. 13 Ps. by way of permitted increases.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendant carried the matter further by way of appeal before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, being Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001. The Appellate Bench, after considering the arguments of both the sides, confirmed the decree of the trial court on the ground of acquisition of alternative accommodation. However, the decree of the trial court regarding payment of Rs. 15,883. 13 Ps. is modified by the appellate court, and, instead, the said amount was reduced to Rs. 12,339. 00. So far as the decree for possession is concerned, the same is accordingly confirmed by the appellate court. The tenant, being aggrieved by the said decree, has approached this Court by way of this revision application, which is filed under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act.

( 5 ) AT the time of hearing of this revision application, this court has also called for the record and proceedings from the trial court and that is how, the entire evidence, both documentary and oral, is available for my perusal in this revision application. Mr. S. M. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner-tenant, vehemently submitted that so far as the finding recorded by both the courts below in connection with Section 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act is concerned, the said finding of fact is not correct, as, the premises is situated in Kruti Apartments, which consists of two flats, and the said flats are in the names of his wife Nalini and his son Sudip. Mr. Shah further submitted that the tenant cannot assert any right in any manner if the premises is purchased by his son and wife. It is also submitted by Mr. Shah that the tenant cannot go and occupy the said premises, as, he has no right, title or interest over the s