JUDGMENT - M.L. PENDSE, J.:---The dispute involved in this petition relates to 8 Khans out of City Survey No. 1481/1 and 1485/2 situated at Pandharpur. The petitioner is in occupation of the premises from October 8, 1960 on the annual rent of Rs. 50/-. 2. The respondent instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 203 of 1965 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pandharpur for recovery of possession on the ground that the petitioner has committed defaults in payment of rent; the petitioner has committed acts which amount to nuisance and the petitioner has acquired vacant possession of suitable residence. In this petition, the only ground which requires consideration is the acquisition of suitable residence by the petitioner as both the courts below have turned down the claim of the landlord on the ground of default in payment of rent and the nuisance. 3. It is not in dispute that the mother of the petitioner purchased the property bearing City Survey No. 1427/1428 at Pandharpur. The property consists of 10 Khans and has amenities of electric light, latrine and water tap. The mother of the petitioner died and the property was inherited by the petitioner as a sole owner. The property is situated at a distance of 500 feet from the suit property. The respondent claimed that the petitioner has acquired vacant possession of the entire house and one Mahadeo Sakharam Dande who was the tenant of the property was evicted. The respondent landlord claimed that the petitioner, instead of shifting to those premises, inducted some students in the premises and is recovering rent. Both the courts below have accepted the claim of the landlord that the petitioner has acquired vacant possession of suitable residence after the coming into operation of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The judgment of the learned Assistant Judge, Sholapur delivered on April 29, 1976 is under challenge in this petition. 4. Shri Patankar, the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, submitted that the landlord has failed to establish the ground contemplated under section 13(1) (I) of the Act. The learned counsel submits that what is required under the sub-section is not mere acquisition of vacant possession of suitable residence but it must be established that on the date of the suit such vacant possession was available. The learned counsel submits that what is required under the sub-section is not mere acquisition of vacant possession of suitable residence but it must be established that on the date of the suit such vacant possession was available. Shri Patankar urges that the evidence on record does not indicate that on the date of the institution of the suit i.e. august 2, 1969, the house which he has inherited was still available for his residence. The submission of Shri Patankar is not correct. The provisions of this sub-section are attracted as soon as the tenant acquires vacant possession of suitable residence and the cause of action which accrues to the landlord for recovery of possession is not postponed till the date of the suit. In other words, it is not necessary for the landlord to establish that the tenant was in possession of vacant premises on the date of the institution of the suit. Shri Patankar then submits that the landlord has failed to establish that vacant possession was obtained at any stage by the petitioner. This submission is also not correct because the petitioner has admitted in his deposition that he got actual possession of the entire property on the death of his mother. There is one more circumstance which would falsify the claim of the petitioner. The sale deed secured by the mother of the petitioner recites that one Mahadeo Dande was the tenant of the property. The petitioner had to admit that Dande is no longer in occupation of the premises, but the property is in occupation of Gulmire and Bandal. These facts coupled with the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the landlord leave no manner of doubt that the petitioner acquired vacant possession of the premises. Shri Patankar did not dispute that House No 1427/1428 is a suitable residence. In my judgment, both the courts below have correctly passed the decree of eviction on the strength of evidence available on record and those judgments do not require any interference in the present petition. 5. Accordingly, the petition fails and the rule is discharged with costs. -----