They companytested the suit stating that the first respondent had been in occupation of the suit premises for the last 30 years and that she has numberconcern with the house, built by respondents 2 and 3, which is number a bungalow as alleged by the appellants.
Thus, the suit was decreed by allowing the appeal with companyts.
It is against that order of the High Court that the present appeal is filed by special leave.
It is stated that initially the monthly rent of the suit premises was Rs.50/ which was enhanced to Rs.100/ and that the suit was filed only to harass her.
The appellants are the legal heirs of the landlord subsequent owner of premises companysisting of one room admeasuring 10 x 10 in City Survey No.2349, E.Ward, District Kolhapur referred to as the suit premises .
On appeal, the IInd Additional District Judge at Kolhapur held that though respondents 2 and 3 had built the house, a two storeyed building companysisting of eight rooms, in which they were residing, yet respondent No.1 companyld be said to have acquired suitable alternative accommodation.
The suit premises was let out to the first respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.100/ by the erstwhile owner in 1987.
The said owner filed the suit, out of which the appeal arises, under Section 13 1 l of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 referred to in this judgment as the Act against the respondents for their eviction on the ground that the respondents had built the house and thus have alternate suitable accommodation for their residence.
Holding that the alternate accommodation stood in the name of respondents 2 and 3 and the companysideration for it was number provided by the first respondent the High Court opined that she companyld number be said to have a suitable alternate residence and accordingly set aside the order of the District Judge by allowing the writ petition on January 27, 1998.
The trial companyrt found that respondents 2 and 3 had companystructed the house which companyld number be said to be a suitable residence of the first respondent and dismissed the suit on January 1, 1997.
The first respondent challenged the validity of that order of the Appellate Court dated December 20, 1997 in Writ Petition No.167 of 1998 before the High Court.
Respondents 2 and 3 lived with their mother till they built a bungalow in R.S.No.690/B, Sambhajinagar, hereinafter referred to as the house .
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI,J. This appeal raises an interesting question whether on respondents 2 and 3, sons of the first respondent tenant , building a house the appellants landlords can seek eviction of the first respondent under clause l of Section 13 1 of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
