R.A.MEHTA - (1.)The petitioner is the owner of the house in Surat purchased by him in the year 1969 with the sitting tenant. The Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 has been made applicable to this premises. He retired from government service in 1976 and he wanted to occupy this premises and therefore he filed a suit for eviction on the ground of his personal and bona fide requirements. He also alleged that the tenant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit for possession on the ground that the so called alternative accommodation is at Ankleshwar and not suitable for the tenant who has settled in Surat. There is concurrent finding of fact that the alternative accommodation cannot be said to be suitable and therefore that cannot be interfered with.
(2.)The lower courts have also held that for the purpose of sec. 13(1)(g) (personal and bona fide requirement of the landlord) the petitioner the plaintiff cannot be said to be a landlord in view of the Explanation to sec. 13(1)(x); he having acquired and purchased the property after 1-1-1964. Said Explanation ads as under:
"Explanation: For the purposes of cl.(g) of sub-sec.(1):- (a) a person shall not be deemed to be a landlord unless he has acquired his interest in the premises at a date prior to the beginning of the tenancy or the first day of January 1964 whichever is later or if the interest has devolved an him by inheritance or succession his predecessor-in-title had acquired the interest at a date prior to the beginning of the tenancy or the first day of January. 1964 whichever is later".
Is clear that the petitioner has acquired interest in the premises after the 1964 and after the beginning of the tenancy of the opponent and therefore the petitioner owner cannot be held to be a landlord the purpose of cl. (g) of sec. (1). Such an owner cannot seek eviction of a tenant on the ground that he requires the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for occupation by himself.
(3.)view of this cleat position of law both the courts below have dismissed the suit of the petitioner for possession on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement under sec. 13(1)(g).