The respondent, who was a teacher, was the tenant of a block of four rooms on the first floor of the house.
Both sides filed appeals in the companyrt of the District Judge.
His son, however, stayed on in Poona as he was studying there.
The appellant is the owner of a house in Poona.
Following a decision of a full bench in K.B. Sipahimalani v. Fidahussein Vallibhoy 58 B.L.P. 344 the division bench which heard the writ petition held that in spite of the dismissal of the petition by the learned Single Judge there companyld be interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution on a proper case being made out.
The appellant filed a suit in the companyrt of Judge, Small Causes, under the provisions of the Act for possession of the suit premises, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent had acquired suitable accommodation elsewhere.
The position taken up by the respondent was that his son was required to stay on in Poona and for that reason it companyld number said that the had acquired suitable residence at Wai.
After going into the merits the bench expressed the view that the respondent had number acquired an alternative suitable residence.
It was either suitable for the whole family or it was number suitable.
The Extra Assistant Judge who disposed them of was of the view that the companyrt was number empowered to bifurcate the premises.
But he affirmed the decree on the ground that the order of the trial companyrt was an equitable one.
In 1958 he was transferred to another town Wai where he was allotted suitable residential accommodation.
The respondent preferred a petition for revision under Section 115 of the CPC before the High Court.
The companyrts below were therefore, wrong in companying to the companytrary companyclusion.
The only question for decision is whether the High Court companyld interfere under Articles 226 227 of the Constitution with the order of the appellate companyrt in proceedings under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act, when a petition for revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, against the same order had been previously dismissed by a single Judge of that companyrt.
N. Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the division bench of the Bombay High Court.
