IMPORTANT POINT
The tenant's acquisition of alternative accommodation under Section 13(1)(l) of the Rent Act justified eviction, with the principle of greater hardship being irrelevant in this context.

JUDGMENT :

J.C. DOSHI, J.

1. With the consent of learned advocates for both the sides, the present Revision Application is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.

2. This Revision Application under section 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (for short “the Rent Act”) challenges the judgment and finding arrived at in Regular Civil Suit No. 20 of 2004, whereby, learned Additional Civil Judge, Devgadhbaria by judgment and decree dated 31.12.2013 while allowing the suit of the landlord directed tenant to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of suit premises within 90 days on the ground that tenant has acquired suitable accommodation. In Regular Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2017 filed before learned Additional District Court, Limkheda at Dahod, the Revisionist-tenant lost appeal. Learned Appellate Court by judgment and order dated 17.05.2021 confirmed and approved judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the concurrent findings arrived by learned Courts below, tenant is before this Court by way of present Revision Application.

4. The Revisionist/defendant is tenant and respondent is landlord-plaintiff. They are referred as tenant and landlord hereinafter.

5. Facts of the case are as under:

5.1. The Room No. 3 having area of 56 meter of Panchayat House No. 2236 in City Survey No. 657, which is located in the chawl near Ranchhodji Temple in Devgadh Baria village in Devgadh Baria Taluka is the disputed room in the suit. The plaintiff has filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act against the defendant to obtain possession of the disputed room. However, plaintiff’s suit is dismissed on holding that defendant does not hold the possession as a trespasser. Hence, he has accepted the defendant in the matter as a tenant and stated that there is no alternative but to accept the defendant as a tenant. The plaintiff further states in this suit that the defendant has managed to get a house with good amenities for residential purpose in Devgadh Baria and enjoys ownership-possession right of the house. The defendant has accepted this fact in her deposition on oath in the earlier suit. The defendant has built a house with good amenities for herself and her children for the purpose of residing. Therefore, since the defendant has lost the right as a tenant, the plaintiff has issued a notice to the defendant on 01-01-2004 for vacating the house. As the defendant did not vacate the house and thus did not comply with the notice, the plaintiff has cited this reason for filing the suit and requested to grant relief as mentioned in the Para No. 12 of the present suit.

6. Learned advocate Ms. Sneha Joshi for the Revisionist raised singular point in the matter that learned Courts below have committed serious error in passing decree of eviction. She would further submit that learned Courts below failed to consider the issue of greater hardship. It is further submitted that even landlord was holding more than one premises, whereas, tenant has only one premises, where, her mother is living. It is further submitted that learned Courts below failed to consider this legal issue and also committed serious error while not discussing the issue of greater hardship in the concurrent findings. It is submitted that landlord, apart from having disputed premises also hold two storyed building and yet this issue though has been contended in written statement as well as raised before the learned Court below, it is not considered on its merits. It is manifest error on the part of learned Trial Court and it is large before the learned Appellate Court, as appeal is also dismissed. It is further submitted that proper comparison of greater hardship is made or greaterness is found or assessed, it is found that tenant suffers greater hardship than landlord but since this issue has not tackled properly by the learned Trial Court as well as appellate Court, the Revision Application deserve