S. D. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is tenants revision application against the judgment and decree for possession of suit property as well as for a sum of Rs. 101/- being arrears of rent and mesne profits upto the date of the suit passed by the Joint Dist, Judge, Nadiad in Regular civil Appeal No. 160/79 thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Joint civil Judge (SD), Nadiad, dated 16. 8. 79 in Regular Civil Suit No. 199/73. ( 2 ) THE respondents-landlords sued the petitioner-tenant and respondent No. 3 (alleged sub-tenant) by instituting aforesaid civil suit for possession of the suit premises and for arrears of rent and mesne profits on the following grounds: (I) The petitioner-tenant was liable to be evicted as he was in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months, and has neglected to pay rent despite service of notice of demand under section 12 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act. (II) That the suit premises has not been used by the petitioner- tenant without reasonable cause for which the same was let out for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding to the date of suit and hence the petitioner-tenant was liable to be evicted under section 13 (1) (K ). (III) The petitioner-tenant has after coming into operation of the Act acquired vacant possession of suitable residential accommodation and hence under section 13 (1) (1) of the Act the petitioner-tenant is liable to be evicted. (IV) The petitioner-tenant has unlawfully sub-let the suit premises to the respondent No. 8 (defendant No. 2) and has incurred liability of eviction under section 13 (1) (e) of the said Act. (V) By amending the plaint during the pendency of suit additional ground was added claiming that the suit premises were reasonably and bonafide required by the respondents-landlords for their occupation under section 13 (1) (g) and that if no decree for possession is passed in favour of landlords greater hard ship will be caused to the landlords. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-tenant resisted the suit by filing written statement and his main defence was one of the denials. The sub- tenant filed the written statement contending that he was not the tenant of the suit premises nor was he in possession of the suit premises on the date of suit or thereafter. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-tenant resisted the suit by filing written statement and his main defence was one of the denials. The sub- tenant filed the written statement contending that he was not the tenant of the suit premises nor was he in possession of the suit premises on the date of suit or thereafter. ( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the issues at Exh. 22 and after recording the evidence of the parties it came to conclusion that the landlords have failed to prove that the petitioner-tenant was in arreas of rent. It further held that the landlords have also failed to prove that the petitioner- tenant has not been using the suit premises for more than six months immediately preceding the date of suit. While deciding issue no. 7 the trial court held that the amount of Rs. 101/- was due and payable by the petitioner-tenant to the respondents- landlords towards arrears of rent and mesne profits. On the question of acquisition of suitable residential accommodation by the petitioner- tenant the trial court held that the petitioner-tenant has acquired alternative suitable residential accommodation after coming into force of the Bombay Rent Act, and therefore, he was liable to be evicted. On the ground of reasonable and bonafide personal requirement of the respondents-landlords the trial court held that they have successfully proved that the suit premises was reasonably and bonafide required by them for their personal use and occupation, and on the question of hardship the trial court recorded the finding that greater hardship would be caused to the respondents- landlords by refusing to pass decree for eviction, and therefore, also it held that the respondents-landlords were entitled to a decree for possession under section 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rent Act. On the aforesaid findings it decreed the suit for possession of the respondents-landlords. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesiad findings the petitioner- tenant preferred aforesaid Civil Appeal No. 160/79 and the Joint Dist. Judge, Nadiad by his judgment and decree in revision before this court confirmed the findings of the trial court and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. ( 6 ) MR. N. S. Desai, Ld. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesiad findings the petitioner- tenant preferred aforesaid Civil Appeal No. 160/79 and the Joint Dist. Judge, Nadiad by his judgment and decree in revision before this court confirmed the findings of the trial court and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. ( 6 ) MR. N. S. Desai, Ld. advocate for petitioner-tenant has challenged the aforesaid concurrent findings of ihe courts below by making following submissions : (I) Having recorded the finding on issue No. 2/- to the effect that the landlords have failed to prove that their tenant was in arrears of rent the courts below could not have passed the decree for the amount of Rs. 101/- and to that extent the decree for Rs. 101/- passed by the lower courts is required to be set aside. (II) The lower appellate court has failed to appreciate the additional evidence which was produced before it to the effect that during the pendency of appeal before the Dist. court the petitioner-tenant had sold newly acquired residential premises to one Mohmed Iqbal Ibrahim for Rs. 30,000/- on 11. 9. 1979, and true copy of extract from the property register of the city survey office of Nadiad was produced and therefore since the petitionertenant was not in possession of any alternative and suitable residential accommodation decree for possession could not have been passed U/sec 13 (1) (1) of the Bombay Rent Act. (III) The lower courts erred in passing the decree for possession under section 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rent Act as there was no sufficient evidence to hold that the requirement of respondents- landlords was reasonable and bonafide and secondly because the respondents-landlords could have sued other tenants of other premises. ( 7 ) RE-SUBMISSION (I): (i) The first submission of Mr. Desai though attractive at the first blush can not stand judicial scrutiny and shall have to be rejected. The trial court has recorded the finding on issue No. 2 by holding that the landlords have failed to prove that the tenant was in arrears of rent as alleged in the plaint. The trial court has found that in the notice terminating tenancy there was no specific mention as to from which date their rent was due. In the plaint it was the case of the landlord that the rent of Rs. The trial court has found that in the notice terminating tenancy there was no specific mention as to from which date their rent was due. In the plaint it was the case of the landlord that the rent of Rs. 861/- was due for the period upto July 18,1972 while Rs. 875/- was remitted by the tenant by money order and also by depositing the amount in the court in the previous suit. The trial court has, therefore, come to conclusion that on the date of notice no rent was due. The landlords have in the plaint claimed rent and mesne profits for the period between July 18,1972 to 18th June, 1973 and such demand is for an amount of Rs. 110/ -. At the rate of Rs. l0/-p. m. which is the standard rent as fixed by the court, rent for 11 months would work out to Rs. 110/- and that was due. After deducting the payments already made by the tenant the trial court has come to conclusion that the amount of rs. 10/- was still outstanding and it has therefore passed a decree for the said amount. In my opinion, the trial court was right in recording the finding that the tenant could not be said to be tenant in arrears of rent so as to incur liability of eviction under section 12 of the said Act, and it was also at the same time right in passing a decree for arrears of rent-cum-mesne profits for the rent which was payable between July 18, 1972 to June 18, 1973. This first submission of Mr. Desai must therefore fail. ( 8 ) RE-SUBMISSION (II): (I) Mr. Desai, Ld. advocate for petitioner has strenuously urged before this court that the lower appellate court ought to have taken into consideration the subsequent event, namely, the event of petitioner-tenants disposal of newly acquired suitable residential accommodation by selling it to one mohmed Iqbal Ibrahim for Rs. 30,000/- on 11. 9. 79. He submitted that it is true that the petitioner-tenant has acquired suitable residential accommodation on the date of suit as well as at a point of time when the decree for possession was passed by the trial court. 30,000/- on 11. 9. 79. He submitted that it is true that the petitioner-tenant has acquired suitable residential accommodation on the date of suit as well as at a point of time when the decree for possession was passed by the trial court. He however submitted that during pendency of appeal preferred by the petitioner-tenant before the district Court, the tenant has disposed of the said suitable residential accommodation by selling it and therefore the liability of eviction which was incurred under section 13 (1) (1) of the Bombay Rent Act would no longer survive and the lower appellate court was not justified in confirming the decree for possession in favour of landlords on that court. He submitted that suitable residential accommodation which was acquired by the tenant having been disposed off by the tenant subsequently it would not continue to provide any cause of action for eviction of the tenant. (II) In order to appreciate the aforesaid submission of Mr. Desai it is necessary to make reference to the provisions of Sec 13 (1) (l)of Bombay Rents Hotel and Loding House Rates Control Act, 1947. "13 (1): Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act (but subject to the provisions of Sec. 15) a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the court is satisfied (1) that the tenant after the" coming into operation of this Act has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence" (III) From the aforesaid provisions it becomes clear that in order that the landlord may claim a decree for eviction under this provision it is necessary that the tenant must have acquired or has been allotted a suitable residence. If such factual possition is in existence on the date of filing of suit the liability of eviction is incurred. A tenant can not avoid the liability of eviction by his subsequent conduct. of either disposing of or transferring newly acquired residential accomodation to someone at any time subsequent to the date of suit. The position of law is now well settled by the decision of this court in the case of Shivlal Nathuram Vaishnav vs. Harshadrai Haribhai Oza, reported in 21 GLR 99. of either disposing of or transferring newly acquired residential accomodation to someone at any time subsequent to the date of suit. The position of law is now well settled by the decision of this court in the case of Shivlal Nathuram Vaishnav vs. Harshadrai Haribhai Oza, reported in 21 GLR 99. In the said case the division Bench of this court has after referring to the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Gappulal vs. Thakurji Shriji, reported in AIR 1969 SC 1291 held that in order that the landlord may successfully claim a decree for eviction it should be necessary that the tenant has acquired or been allotted a suitable residence and that acquisition or allotment continues in existince till the date of filing of the suit. The reason for reaching this conclusion is obvious that on the known principle the cause of action must have occured at the date of suit and the cause of action under section 13 (1) (1) is that the tenant has acquired or been allotted suitable residence. The conteution of the tenant that in order to get a decree of eviction under this clause the tenant must also continue to be in possession of suitable residence at the time of decree was in terms rejected by the division Bench. In my opinion, such a contention is thoroughly misconceived inasmuch as the liability to be evicted is already incurred once the tenant has acquired suitable residential accommodation and tenant can not avoid such liability by subsequent disposal of property or by subsequently transferring the occupation/possession of such premises to someone else. Section 13 (1) (1) confers right on the landlord to recover the possesssion of leased premises from the tenant. It correspondingly provides for liability of eviction of the tenant and once that landlord is successful in establishing that the tenant has acquired or has been allotted suitable residential accommodation the right to sue the tenant for eviction occurs to the landlord. The tenant can not escape such liability nor can he deprive the landlord of his right which has accured to him to recover the possession of the premises by subsequent sale or disposal of the property during the pendency of the proceedings in the court of law. The right which is accured to the landlord can not be defeated by the tenant by such device. The right which is accured to the landlord can not be defeated by the tenant by such device. If such device is permitted the ground of eviction available to the landlord under section 13 (1) (L) of Bombay Rent Act would be rendered meaningless and inoperative as every tenant would immediately on coming know about the factum of institution of suit sell or dispose of the suitable residential accommodation acquired by him. This can not be and is not the intention of the legislature. The second submission of Mr. Desai must also therefore fail. ( 9 ) RE-SUBMISSION (III): (i) The trial court has after considering the entire oral evidence come to conclusion that the landlors require the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for their personal use and occupation. Such finding is confirmed in apppeal by the lower appellate court. Both from the point of view of the size of the family of the landlord and from the area of residential accommodation in possession of the size of the family of the landlords two courts have concurrently found that the requirement of respondents- landlords was reasonable and bonafide requirement for personal use and occupation. Both the courts have also concurrently found that greater hardship would be caused to the respondents-landlords if the decree for possession if refused to them. Mr. Desai has not been in a position to show as to how such a finding is perverse or so unreasonable as to justify interference of his court in its revisional jurisdiction. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the third submission of Mr. Desai can not be accepted inasmuch as entertaining such submission would amount to re-appreciation of evidence. In my revisional jurisdiction I do not want to undertake such an exercise especially when Mr. Desai has not been able to show that such finding was either perverse or was based on no evidence. ( 10 ) THE aforesaid were only submissions made by Mr. Desai, learned advocate for petitioners. ( 11 ) SINCE all the three submissions fail, this CRA must also fail. Same is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs. Interim relief stands vacated. .