J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) ALLOTMENT of quarter to the employee of the State or the central Government in connection with his employment with the employer could be said or not as acquisition or allotment of the suitable alternative accommodation under Sec. 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) is the main theme of this Revision Petition. Thus, short and interesting question which has figured in this revision is with regard to the interpretation and applicability of the provisions of Sec. 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay rent Act in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the original defendant-tenant and the respondents are the original plaintiffs landlords. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the landlords, and tenant. The defendant is the tenant in respect of one room in the building bearing Municipal Census No. 17-136 situated in the city of Baroda, at a monthly rent of Rs. 35. 00. There is no dispute about the fact that the plaintiffs are the landlords and the defendant is the tenant in respect of the demise property consisted of one room. ( 3 ) THE landlords filed Rent Suit No. 3273 of 1975 for the purpose of recovery of rent and eviction of the demise property against the tenant on the ground of his having acquired and allotted suitable alternative accommodation under Section 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act. Other averments in the suit and the written statement are not material for the present. The defendant tenant resisted the suit by filing written statement, inter alia, contending that the plaintiffs are not the only owners and landlords and therefore, they are not entitled to the file suit. He also contended that he had been let not only one room but the entire portion of the second floor of the suit property. A contention was also raised that the contractual rate of rent is not the standard rent. He denied the allegations of arrears of rent. He also filed civil Misc. Application No. 337 of 1975 for the purpose of fixation of standard rent. Other averments made in the plaint were also denied. A contention was also raised that the contractual rate of rent is not the standard rent. He denied the allegations of arrears of rent. He also filed civil Misc. Application No. 337 of 1975 for the purpose of fixation of standard rent. Other averments made in the plaint were also denied. The material part important for the purpose of this revision is about the acquisition and allotment of quarter to the tenant. The defendant-tenant denied that he was offered quarter by the Railway authority. Alternatively, he contended that the staff quarter is not suitable for his residence. ( 4 ) IN the light of the pleadings of the parties, issues came to be settled, at Ex. 13, and the trial Court after having examined the facts and circumstances and the pleadings of the parties decreed the suit, on 29th September, 1979. The tenant is directed to handover vacant possession of the demise property to the plaintiffs on the ground of Sec. 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act. The trial Court fixed the contractual rent as the standard rent plus electricity charges. The standard rent application and the suit came to be consolidated and came to be disposed of by the Small Causes Court, Vadodara by common judgment on 29th September, 1979 as aforesaid. ( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court against the tenant, he questioned its legality and validity by filing Regular Civil No. 365 of 1979 in the District Court, at Baroda, which also came to be dismissed, on 30- 6-1981. The decree passed by the trial Court came to be confirmed. The standard rent fixed by the trial Court at Rs. 35. 00 was also confirmed. However, it was clarified that the amount of rent of Rs. 35. 00 is inclusive of electrical charges. ( 6 ) THUS, both the Courts have concurrently and consistenly held on facts that the allotment of quarter to the tenant by the Railway Department in the capacity as an employee is a suitable residence. Therefore, the tenant is held to be liable for ejectment. In the circumstances, the original defendant-tenant has, now come before this Court challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below by filing this revision under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay rent Act. Therefore, the tenant is held to be liable for ejectment. In the circumstances, the original defendant-tenant has, now come before this Court challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below by filing this revision under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay rent Act. ( 7 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner original defendant-tenant has raised following two contentions : (1) that the allotment of quarter to an employee by the master or the employer is not permanent and therefore, it could not be said to be a suitable residence attracting the rigours of the provisions of Sec. 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent act; and (2) that the Courts below have erred in holding that the quarter alloted is suitable in view of the distance between the demise premises and the allotted quarter. In support of the aforesaid two contentions, the learned advocate for the petitionertenant has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Nathani Shivankumar v. Dhanalal, reported in (1975) XVI GLR 779. ( 8 ) FIRSTLY, it is necessary to mention that the jurisdictional scope of revision under Sec. 29 (2) is limited though it is wider than the jurisdiction exercisable under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. But it cannot be equated with appellate powers. Thus, in a revision under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act, the purpose should be to satisfy the Court that any such decision is not according to law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the record does not show that the decisions rendered by both the Courts below and the resultant passing of ejectment decree is not in any way according to law. Therefore, on this ground itself, this revision is liable to be rejected. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that allotment of quarter by the employer or master is only for a limited period of service and therefore, the tenant who has been allotted quarter as an employee in connection with his employment will have to vacate the same on termination of service or on attaining the age of superannuation. It, is therefore, contended that such an allotment to tenant by the master is not a protected tenancy under the Bombay Rent Act and therefore, such an allotment by the employer to the employee for a limited purpose of service could not be said to be a suitable residence allotted to the tenant warranting rigours of the provisions of Sec. 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act. This submission runs counter to the spirit of Sec. 13 (1) (l ). Therefore, it cannot be accepted. Section 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act reads as follows : "13 (1) (l) that the tenant after the coming into operation of this Act has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence. " it could very well be seen from the aforesaid provision that even if the tenant has been allotted a suitable residence, it is sufficient to attract the provisions of Sec. 13 (1) (l ). What is sought to be argued is that the allotment is not permanent. The word permanent is not provided in Sec. 13 (1) (l ). What is provided is, if a tenant has been alloted suitable residence, he is liable to be ejected from the demise premises. What is required to be shown by the landlord is that the tenant has been allotted suitable residence. It must be shown to be suitable. It is not necessary that it should be shown to be permanent. ( 10 ) IT must be remembered that Sec. 13 (1) (l) is aimed and designed with an object that the tenant should not have more than one residential premises at a time. The Legislature has kept in mind the shortage of residential premises and the increase in need for such residential accommodation. It cannot be disputed that even at this stage in our country, millions of houses are required. By giving statutory right to the landlord to resort to this clause, the Legislature intended that if the existing tenant vacates or acquires the premises, the same can be made available to another needy to have a roof over his head. It cannot be disputed that even at this stage in our country, millions of houses are required. By giving statutory right to the landlord to resort to this clause, the Legislature intended that if the existing tenant vacates or acquires the premises, the same can be made available to another needy to have a roof over his head. The tenant cannot be allowed to stick to two premises or lock the premises or handed it over to third person alleging that his intention is to return to the demise premises or that he has not acquired permanent allotment or that he has not acquired permanent premises. Had that been the real intention of the Legislature, the expression made in Sec. 13 (1) (l) would have been in a different phraseology. The only empasis led in Sec. 13 (1) (l) is the suitability of the premises and not the permanency. ( 11 ) THE provisions of Sec. 13 (1) (l) as such are based on very healthy and sound public and legislative policy. The Courts have repeatedly emphasised such a policy while interpreting the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. If the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant is accepted that the allotment of quarter by the master in relation to the employment to the employee is not permanent and therefore the landlord will not be qualified to claim possession under Sec. 13 (1) (l), then in that case it would not only run counter to the spirit of the provisions of Sec. 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act but undoubtedly would frustrate the very policy and object of the provisions of Sec. 13 (1) (1 ). ( 12 ) IF the conditions laid down in Sec. 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act are fulfilled, the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the Act. If it is, successfully, proved and shown that the tenant has been allotted suitable residence, or has received possession or has acquired suitable residence, the tenant will be disentitled to the protection of the Bombay Rent Act and on the other hand, the landlord would be entitled to possession of the premises under Sec. 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act. ( 13 ) NOW the question which is raised on behalf of the tenant is that the allotted quarter to the defendant-tenant as an employee of the Western Railway is not suitable. In this connection, it is contended that suitability includes the conveniences of the tenant and the quarter which is allotted to the tenant is one-and-a-half kilometre farther from the school of the children of the tenant. In other words, what is contended is that the children of the defendant tenant will have to travel one-and-a-half km. more by enjoying the quarter allotted to the tenant by the Railway Authorities in his capacity as an employee. This could hardly be said to be a ground affecting the expression suitability as employed in Sec. 13 (1) (l ). Mere fact that on account of use and occupation of the allotted residence, the children of the tenant will have to travel one-and-a-half kilometre more cannot be said to be a ground which could be legally upheld while interpreting and examining the expression `suitability of the allotted residence. There is no dispute about the fact that the alloted quarter is bigger than the rented property. The rented property consisted of only one room whereas allotted quarter consists of two rooms and a kitchen. Merely because there is a distance of one-and-a-half km. in between the rented and allotted premises, it cannot said that it is inconvenient and therefore it is not suitable. ( 14 ) THE legislature has not defined the expression `suitable residence as it would depend upon variety of circumstances according to the needs of the tenant and the facts and circumstances of the case. The contention that one-and-a-half km. more distance between the rented property and the allotted quarter will affect the suitability is, though appears to be ingenuous submission, totally unsustainable. If such a contention is accepted, it would spoil the very object and purpose of this clause. It may be noted that there is no dispute about the fact that the allotted quarter is bigger than the rented property. Both the Courts below have concurrenlty and consistently recorded a finding of fact that the tenant has been allotted a suitable residence and therefore he is disentitled to the protection of the Act and the landlord is entitled to get the possession by decree of ejectment in his favour in respect of the rented property. Both the Courts below have concurrenlty and consistently recorded a finding of fact that the tenant has been allotted a suitable residence and therefore he is disentitled to the protection of the Act and the landlord is entitled to get the possession by decree of ejectment in his favour in respect of the rented property. This finding of fact is also required to be confirmed. ( 15 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner tenant has placed reliance on the decision in Nathani Shivankumar (supra) to substantiate the contention that the allotted quarter is not suitable. After closely examining the aforesaid decision of this Court, it could safely be concluded that the same is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, the tenant had temporarily shifted to another premises. There was evidence in that case that there was temporary shifting for nine months by the tenant. There was no evidence in that case to show that he had shifted to a temporary premises with an intention to settle down there. In that context, it was held by this Court that the landlord had not proved to say that the tenant had shifted the residence and had obtained residential premises for that purpose. The material two ingredients attracting the rigours of the provisions of Sec. 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act were not established in that case. It was not a case of allotment of quarter by the master to the employee. It is also not clear from the said decision as to what prompted the tenant to shift the residence for a short spell of nine months. However, it was found from the facts that there was temporary occupation of another premises by the tenant and there was no acquisition of suitable residence. That is not the factual scenario in the present case. Here, the landlord has successfully established that both the material ingredients of Sec. 13 (1) (l ). Therefore, he is entitled to ejectment decree against the defendant tenant. ( 16 ) THE acquisition or allotment of premises is not contemplated to be on permanent basis as contended under Sec. 13 (1) (l ). Here, the landlord has successfully established that both the material ingredients of Sec. 13 (1) (l ). Therefore, he is entitled to ejectment decree against the defendant tenant. ( 16 ) THE acquisition or allotment of premises is not contemplated to be on permanent basis as contended under Sec. 13 (1) (l ). No doubt, if ad-hoc acquisition is purely on temporary nature and the tenant is liable to vacate and return in a stipulated spell to the rented premises or at any time earlier then it may not be said to be an acquisition or allotment of suitable residence as contemplated by Sec. 13 (1) (l ). Where a tenant who is a permanent employee of a State or Central Government or Govt. or Corporation or any other employer had who is allotted a quarter or residence by the employer or master pursuant to his employment is, obviously, entitled to such a quarter or residence till the termination of his service or attaining superannuation age or transfer of posting. Therefore, acquisition or allotment of a quarter or residence to an employee by the employer in such a situation could not be said to be temporary as contended on behalf of the petitioner original tenant. This Court in Dinesh Ratilal Panwala v. Chhaganlal Lallubhai (Civil Revision application No. 928 of 1986 decided on 19-9-1986) had an occasion to examine a case of similar nature. In that case, the tenant was allotted a residential premises by the Government. A contention was raised on behalf of the tenant that such an acquisition or allotment was not on a permanent basis and therefore the provisions of Sec. 13 (1) (l) would not be attracted. This Court had rejected the aforesaid contention and held that the tenant is a Government employee and according to the relevant provisions of the Government rules, he is entitled to continue in service till his retirement and therefore, he was liable for eviction decree and he cannot claim protection of the Bombay Rent Act. It may also be mentioned that even if the tenant as an employee of the Western Railway is ordered to be transferred or his posting is changed to another place, he would obviously be entitled to residential premises under the service rules at the transferred place. It may also be mentioned that even if the tenant as an employee of the Western Railway is ordered to be transferred or his posting is changed to another place, he would obviously be entitled to residential premises under the service rules at the transferred place. ( 17 ) IN the light of the above facts and circumstances, the present revision is meritless and is required to be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, it is dismissed with costs. Rule discharged. Interim relief stands obviously vacated. .