Tenant’s Joint Acquisition of 2BHK Flat Constitutes Alternate Suitable Residence: Bombay High Court Affirms Eviction Decree Despite Tenant's Death

“The acquisition of a 2BHK flat by the tenant during the pendency of eviction proceedings—whether jointly or for financial assistance to his son—constitutes acquisition of suitable alternate residence under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act,” held the Bombay High Court, rejecting the tenant’s heirs' challenge to an eviction decree.

Justice M. M. Sathaye of the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the legal heirs of a deceased tenant, upholding concurrent findings of the Small Causes Court and District Court, which had granted eviction on the ground of acquisition of alternate suitable residence under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The Court found that the tenant, Hari Govind Ranade, had acquired a 2BHK flat jointly with his son during the suit and suppressed this fact from the Court. The plea that the flat was not for his benefit but for his son’s marriage was rejected.

The Tenant Had Acquired a Joint Flat During Pendency of the Suit—Suppression Proved Fatal

"The original Defendant still remains very much owner of a 2 BHK flat, who has majorly contributed towards its payment by raising loan and its repayment,” the Court found, emphasizing the clear financial involvement and joint ownership in the Lokmanya Colony flat.

The litigation originated from a suit filed in 1998 by landlord Keshav Alias Suhas Nilkanth Dandekar, seeking eviction of the tenant, Hari Govind Ranade, from a 300 sq.ft. three-room tenanted premises in Shukrawar Peth, Pune. Among the grounds invoked was Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act—which permits eviction when a tenant acquires a suitable alternate residence.

Initially, the landlord relied on two factors:

1. A bequest under a Will of two rooms in the Kelkar Museum property to the tenant and his wife.
2. Flats owned by the tenant’s sons.

During the pendency of the suit, however, it was discovered that the tenant had jointly purchased a 2BHK flat with his third son Surendra in September 1999—after the eviction suit had been filed. This flat was not disclosed in the tenant’s written statement.

“This fact was suppressed from the Court and the landlord was required to bring on record the said fact during pendency of the appeal,” the Court noted, criticizing the tenant’s concealment and reinforcing the legitimacy of the eviction

"A Man Cannot Be Expected To Live in a Room Which Must Be Shown to Museum Visitors"

The tenant had initially resisted eviction by claiming that he had not shifted to the museum property, and that the bequeathed rooms were not suitable residences due to their restrictive use conditions.

The Court agreed, holding:

“These two rooms, by no stretch of imagination can be called ‘suitable residence’. A man needs basic freedom to use his residence the way he wants and privacy is an integral part of any residence.” [Para 23]

The Will of Dinkar Gangadhar Kelkar, the tenant’s father-in-law, had imposed conditions on the use of the rooms—requiring them to be preserved as a memorial with furniture untouched and made available for public viewing. The Court found that these restrictions rendered the rooms unsuitable as private living quarters, even though they were bequeathed.

Legal Heirs Can Continue the Petition—But That Does Not Confer Tenancy Rights

After the death of the original tenant in 2009, and later his widow, the petition was prosecuted by his three sons. The Court clarified:

“Permitting sons of original Defendant to proceed with the petition cannot be held tantamount to accepting them as tenants under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act.” [Para 18]

Though the legal heirs were brought on record without objection, and were paying mesne profits as directed, the Court held that inheritance of tenancy rights under Section 5(11)(c) requires proof of co-residency at the time of death, which was absent in this case. Accordingly, no independent tenancy rights could be presumed.

Nonetheless, since they were accepted as legal representatives under Order XXII CPC, and were paying compensation, they were entitled to pursue the petition, but only to the extent of challenging the decree against the deceased tenant.

Section 16 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act Does Not Override Eviction Under Old Act

The petitioners argued that after the repeal of the Bombay Rent Act by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the decree should be invalidated since Section 16 of the new Act omits the ground of alternate residence.

The Court dismissed this argument as misconceived, stating:

“The trial has proceeded on the case understood by the parties about whether original Defendant acquired alternate suitable residence; and not his legal heirs or representatives.” [Para 19]

It reaffirmed that eviction proceedings commenced and decreed under the old Act remain valid and enforceable, even after the new Act’s enactment.

Court Rejects Argument That Tenant Was Merely Helping Son Purchase the Flat

The tenant’s defense—that his name appeared in the Nilayam Society flat only to help his son obtain a loan—was not accepted. The Court found:

“His son Surendra himself was not at all in financial position to repay the installment of the loan… All these facts clearly indicate that it is original Defendant who himself has purchased [it].” [Para 26]

Additionally, Surendra admitted under cross-examination that:

• The flat was a full 2BHK (not a single room).
• He had low annual income.
• His marriage occurred 17 months after the flat purchase.
• He was financially supported by the tenant.

These admissions established that the tenant was not just a nominal party, but beneficiary and contributor in the flat’s acquisition, meeting the test of “alternate suitable residence” under Section 13(1)(l).

Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 227: No Perversity or Jurisdictional Error

Justice Sathaye concluded that the findings of both courts below were concurrent, evidence-based, and legally sound, and held:

“The impugned Judgment and Decree does not suffer from any perversity or error apparent on the face of record… Hence, no interference is required in the limited jurisdiction under Article 227.” [Para 29]

The judgment reaffirms the principle that acquisition of alternate residence, even jointly or with family, may defeat the protective umbrella of rent control when the tenant’s possession and benefit are evident.

Eviction Decree Becomes Executable in Six Weeks

The Court directed the petitioners to vacate the premises within six weeks, and permitted the landlord to withdraw deposited compensation.

“The eviction decree becomes executable immediately on expiry of six weeks.” [Para 31]

Date of Decision: 06 November 2025