The court affirmed that a landlord can evict a tenant if the tenant has acquired suitable alternative accommodation, as established under Section 13(1)(l) of the Rent Act.

ORDER :

(SANJEEV J. THAKER, J.)

1. The present Civil Revision Application is filed under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (for short “the Rent Act”) against the Judgment and Decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.25 of 2024, decided by the Appellate Bench No.1 of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad dated 10.01.2025 confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in HRP No.64 of 2021 passed by the Small Causes Court No.8 at Ahmedabad on 23.02.2024.

2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners herein shall be referred to as the defendants and the respondents herein shall be referred to as the plaintiffs.

3. The brief facts arising in the present proceedings are that the plaintiff filed HRP Suit No.64 of 2021 on the ground that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property and the suit property was given on rent by the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs to the father of the defendant no.1 i.e. Bansilal B.Verma and he was a tenant in the suit premises.

4. The plaintiff purchased the suit premises in the year 2018 and thereafter filed the suit for eviction. The Trial Court framed issues vide exhibit-16 are as under:

“(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants have not paid rent of the rented premise for a period more than six months and therefore, they become tenants in arrears?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs proves that the original defendant acquired suitable accommodation as alleged?

(3) Whether the plaintiffs proves that the defendant has made illegal cabin on the terrace and thereby breached terms of tenancy?

(4) Whether the plaintiffs proves that defendant has create nuisance and annoyance by making handles for using toilet to the other tenants?

(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to obtain relieves as prayed for?

(6) What order and decree?”

5. The Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has proved that the original tenant acquired suitable accommodation. The plaintiff in the said suit had examined himself vide exhibit 22 and the defendant no.1 had examined himself vide exhibit 46 and after considering the oral evidence, documentary evidence and giving findings on all the issues, the Trial Court passed a judgment and decree of eviction on the ground that the defendant has acquired alternative suitable accommodation and therefore, and therefore, a decree of eviction under the provision of Section 13(1) (l) of the Rent Act was granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.25 of 2024 and after re-appreciating the evidence, the Appellate Court dismissed the said Civil Appeal hence the present Civil Revision Application.

6. The learned advocate for the defendant has mainly argued that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have not taken into consideration the issue of limitation as the property stated to be the alternative accommodation acquired by the original defendant- tenant was purchased in the year 2008 and the erstwhile owner of the premises i.e. the predecessor in title of the present tenant, were in knowledge that the original tenant has purchased the property and at the time when the plaintiff has also purchased the property in the year 2018, the plaintiff was also aware that the tenant has purchased the property at Shivam Apartment and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff for eviction on the grounds that the defendant had acquired alternative suitable accommodation is hopelessly time barred, as the Trial Court and the Appellate Court could not have passed the Judgment and Decree of eviction against the present defendant. It has also been argued that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have also not taken into consideration that the said alternative accommodation was not suitable for the entire family of the defendant-tenant to reside. It is the case of the defendant-tenant that original defendant no.1 is the wife of Bansilal Verma who was the original tenant and