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.
A learned Single Judge who heard the petition dismissed it as he was number satisfied that the appellate companyrt had acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
It was either suitable for the whole family or it was number suitable.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 14, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judg ment of the division bench of the Bombay High Court.
But he affirmed the decree on the ground that the order of the trial companyrt was an equitable one.
The respondent preferred a petition for revision under s. 1 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the High Court.
In 1958 he was transferred to another town Wai where he was allotted suitable residential accommodation.
The respondent moved a petition under Arts.
After going into the merits the bench expressed the view that the respondent had number acquired an alternative suit able residence.
The only question for decision is whether the High Court companyld interfere under Arts.
His son, however, stayed on in Poona as he was studying there.
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 S. 115, Civil procedure Code, against the same order had been previously dismissed by a single Judge of that companyrt.
Both sides filed appeals in the companyrt of the District Judge.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
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.
C. Bhandare, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the respondent.
870 of 1966.
The appellant is the owner of a house in Poona.
The Extra Assistant Judge who disposed them of was of the view that the companyrt was number empowered to bifurcate the premises.
S. Shukla, for the appellant.
The res pondent, who was a teacher, was the tenant of a block of four rooms on the first floor of the house.
371 of 1965.
