N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. Regular Civil Suit No. 182 of 1998 instituted by the appellant-plaintiff against the defendant-tenant came to be decided on 10th June, 2003 by learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Jamnagar, who passed decree for eviction of the tenant under Sec. 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Against that judgment and decree, the tenant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2003 which was allowed on 7th July, 2006 by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Jamnagar, who in turn set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Present Civil Revision Application under Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act' for sake of brevity) was thus filed by original plaintiff-landlord and is directed against the said judgment and order dated 7th July, 2006 in the aforesaid Regular Civil Appeal.

2. The suit was instituted on 2nd May, 1998 by the applicant-plaintiff for decree of eviction. Initially it was on the ground of arrears of rent. As per the case of the plaintiff-landlord, the suit premises known as Mahadev Har House was rented out to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 800/-. The suit notice terminating the tenancy was issued (Exh. 51). The plaint was subsequently amended as per Exh. 14 application filed on 30th March, 1998 and allowed on 3rd February, 1999. It was pleaded that the tenant was allotted a residential house being Quarters No. 34, Block No. B-3 in the Bedeshar area as per allotment letter dated 4th August, 1998 and it was further stated that the tenant had assumed possession thereof. Accordingly, by the said amendment a ground under Sec. 13(1)(l) of the Rent Act came to be inserted that because of allotment of the said house, the landlord was entitled to get the possession.

2.1. The defendant filed his first written statement at Exh. 12 to the plaint as originally filed. Thereafter, additional written statement was filed at Exh. 23 to the amended plaint (Exh. 17). In the additional written statement (Exh. 23), the defendant denied that he had acquired alternative accommodation. It was contended that the house allotted to him was a Government quarters as he was in Government service; that the same was required to be handed over back on the event of his transfer or at the time of retirement from service. The tenant contended that he had never gone to permanently stay there. He contended that the allotment of the said quarters did not furnish a ground to the landlord for eviction.

2.2. The trial Court framed issues at Exh. 24. Issue No. 3 as to whether the plaintiff proved that the defendant-tenant had acquired alternative suitable residential accommodation after the coming into operation of the Bombay Rent Act, came to be decided in affirmative in favour of the plaintiff-landlord. The rest of issues namely that whether the tenant was in the arrears or whether the suit notice was legal and valid, came to be decided against the plaintiff-landlord. The trial Court passed the decree for eviction on the ground of acquisition of suitable alternative residential accommodation.

2.3. The lower appellate Court reversed the decree passed by the trial Court. With reference to said ground under Sec. 13(1)(l) the lower appellate Court reasoned that the quarters allotted to defendant- tenant was taken back by the authorities. It further weighed with the lower appellate Court that the tenant had not gone to reside in the said Government quarters and that the same was sealed by the authorities at one point of time. It further reasoned that the ground of acquiring of suitable alternative accommodation arose pending the suit, which was not available at the beginning, nor it survived at the time of passing of decree. The lower appellate Court further held that the ground was added only by subsequent amendment after institution of the suit. Thus, by taking into consideration the aforesai