JUDGMENT :

P.B. Majmudar, J.

This revision application is preferred by the original plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 1986. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) at Sihor. The plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit for getting decree for possession. The plaintiff is the owner of the property situated in Sihor town known as Patel Building. The defendant was let out two rooms of the said building at monthly rent of Rs.35/-- for residential purpose.

2. The said suit was filed on various grounds, such as arrears of rent, change of user, permanent alteration in the suit property as well as acquisition of alternative accommodation. However, since the learned advocate for the applicant has restricted his arguments only in connection with acquisition of alternative accommodation under Section 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act, the matter is required to be examined only from that angle.

3. The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant on various grounds. So far as ground about acquisition of alternative accommodation is concerned, initially, the same was not taken in the plaint and after amending the plaint, ground of acquisition of alternative accommodation was pleaded by making an averment in the plaint that the defendant has purchased alternative accommodation on 20th June, 1988. The description of the said premises is given as City Survey No.2641 and 2166, which according to the plaintiff is adjoining to the rented premises. However, the defendant has denied any acquisition of alternative accommodation, as according to the defendant, said new premises is constructed by his two sons from their separate earnings.

4. So far as acquisition of alternative accommodation is concerned, the trial Court, after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that as per the sale deed at Exh.58, it can be seen that the said new house is purchased by the sons of the defendant, namely, Milankumar and Atul by paying Rs.1,25,000/-, from one Parshottam alias Babulal Parmanand Patel on 20th June, 1988. The said house is adjoining to the suit premises. The trial Court has found in para 77 of the judgment that four houses were constructed in Patel Building by the grandfather of the plaintiff and one house came to the share of the plaintiff's uncle one Mr.Parmanand Patel. The said house is purchased by the sons of the defendant. It is found by the trial Court that ground floor of the new premises was occupied by telephone exchange as a tenant, which was subsequently vacated by the telephone exchange on 30-11-1993 and the sons of the defendant have got the possession of the ground floor. It is also found that there are 11 to 12 rooms in the newly constructed premises. On appreciation of evidence and after considering the income of the defendant as well as income of his two sons, the trial Court came to the conclusion that even though the house in question is purchased in the name of Milankumar and Atul, the defendant has invested most of the amount for the purchase of new premises. It is also observed by the trial Court that the new house was also managed by the defendant and the defendant has full control over the said house therefore, the defendant can go and occupy the said house. Accordingly, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant has acquired alternative accommodation as contemplated by Section 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act. The trial Court has dealt with the said question in great detail in para 77 of the order. The trial Court has further held that as alternative accommodation was not available with the defendant when the suit was filed, decree for possession cannot be passed on that ground, as it cannot be said that on the date of filing of the suit, alternative accommodation was acquired by the defendant. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court.

5. Thereafter, the original plaintiff has carried the matter further by filing appeal being Civil Appeal