P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the original plaintiff, who instituted a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 59 of 1986, in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.), Sihor. The plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit for getting decree for possession of the suit premises from the defendant-tenant. The plaintiff is the owner of the property situated in Sihor Town known as Patel Building. The defendant was let out two rooms of Patel Building at a monthly rent of Rs. 35. 00 for residential purpose. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant has not paid the rent from 1. 1. 1982 and that he has also made some changes in the suit property. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has changed the user of the suit premises from residential to business and the wife of the son of the defendant, one Maltiben, has started business in the name of Shradhha Beauty Parlour. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has purchased alternative premises at Sarkhej Road in the City of Ahmedabad in the name of his sons wife Maltiben Shukla, being Flat No. 9, and has obtained the possession of the same. The defendant has also purchased an Open Plot of 500 sq. yards in Sihor town, which he has sold during the pendency of the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff gave an application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant has also purchased a two storeyed building in the name of his two sons in Patel Building in Sihor Town. The case of the plaintiff is that since, the defendant has acquired alternative accommodation, he is required to be evicted from the suit premises. The plaintiff, after serving notice on the defendant, filed the aforesaid suit for getting possession of the suit premises on the aforesaid grounds, as well as, he has claimed decree on the ground of arrears of rent. ( 2 ) THE aforesaid suit, was, resisted by the defendant on various grounds. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff for getting decree for possession on the grounds of arrears of rent, as according to the defendant, he has paid the entire rent, which was accepted by the plaintiff. ( 2 ) THE aforesaid suit, was, resisted by the defendant on various grounds. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff for getting decree for possession on the grounds of arrears of rent, as according to the defendant, he has paid the entire rent, which was accepted by the plaintiff. The defendant also denied the fact that he has made an alteration in the suit premises in any manner. The defendant also denied the claim of the plaintiff that the wife of the son of the defendant has started any beauty parlour in the rented premises. The defendant also denied the case of the plaintiff that he has purchased alternative premises in Ahmedabad on Sarkhej Road. The defendant has also denied the say of the plaintiff that he has constructed a house in Sihor. The defendant has stated that the said house is constructed by his sons who are staying separately. On this and such other grounds, the suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant. ( 3 ) THE Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, and after considering the arguments of the parties came to the conclusion, that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant is in arrears of rent. The Trial Court found that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant has not used the suit property. The Trial Court, came to the conclusion, that the plaintiff has failed to prove any of the grounds raised in the plaint for getting decree of possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on all counts. Regarding acquisition of alternative accommodation, the Trial Court found that so far the premises which is constructed in Sihor town in Patel Building is concerned, the same is purchased by the defendant from his own income in the name of his sons Milankumar and Atulkumar. The Trial Court also found that the said house is in the control of the defendant and that the defendant can even go and occupy the said premises alongwith his sons. The said finding is given by the Trial Court in Para 87 of its judgement. The Trial Court, however, found that the premises in Patel Building is acquired on 28. 6. 1988. As against that, the suit is filed earlier i. e. on 24. 9. 1986. The said finding is given by the Trial Court in Para 87 of its judgement. The Trial Court, however, found that the premises in Patel Building is acquired on 28. 6. 1988. As against that, the suit is filed earlier i. e. on 24. 9. 1986. The Trial Court, accordingly, found that the said premises was not available on the date when the suit was filed and therefore, negativing the ground of acquisition of alternative premises, the Trial Court has dismissed the claim of the plaintiff. The relevant observations of the Trial Court are in Para 93 of the judgement. The Trial Court also dismissed the application preferred by the tenant for fixation of standard rent and the Trial Court found that the rent of the suit premises is Rs. 35/= per month. The Trial Court, accordingly, dismissed the said suit. ( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, by the said judgement and decree of the Trial Court, the present petitioner preferred an appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 102 of 1994, before the District Court at Bhavnagar. The Appellate Court found that the new premises have been purchased by the 2 sons of the defendant from their own income and by raising loans and therefore, the finding of the Trial Court on that point is reversed by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court ultimately came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to get decree for possession on any ground and ultimately, the said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court. The present revision application is preferred by the plaintiff against the aforesaid order of the Appellate Court by preferring this revision under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act. ( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. A. H. Mehta, who is appearing for the petitioner, has mainly confined his argument in connection with acquisition of alternative premises as contemplated by Section 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act. It is submitted by Mr. Mehta that so far as the acquisition of the house in Sihor town is concerned, it is nearby the rented premises. It is submitted by Mr. Mehta that the defendant himself has constructed the said house in the name of his 2 sons. In order to substantiate his say, Mr. Mehta has relied upon the evidence produced by the plaintiff as well as the defendant. It is submitted by Mr. It is submitted by Mr. Mehta that the defendant himself has constructed the said house in the name of his 2 sons. In order to substantiate his say, Mr. Mehta has relied upon the evidence produced by the plaintiff as well as the defendant. It is submitted by Mr. Mehta that the said house is in Sihor town itself and is constructed by the defendant, as such, by investing his own money. However, in order to circumvent the provisions of the Rent Act, the same is constructed in the name of his 2 sons. Mr. Mehta also, further submitted, that the aforesaid 2 sons had hardly any savings or income from which they could have constructed the house in question. Mr. Mehta submitted that it is a clear case of misuse of the provisions of the Rent Act. Mr. Mehta has also relied upon the observations of the Trial Court in this behalf by which the Trial Court has also observed in Para 87 of the judgment that the defendant has got substantial share in purchasing and constructing the house in question and that the defendant is staying with his sons. On that ground, the Trial Court found that the house is purchased by 2 sons of the defendant i. e. Milan and Atul in Patel building. So far as the aforesaid house is concerned, the financial contribution of his sons is absolutely negligible. Mr. Mehta submitted that the Trial Court was absolutely justified in coming to the conclusion that the said house is purchased by the defendant himself or that the defendant has played substantial financial role for purchasing the said house. ( 6 ) I have heard Mr. Mehta at length and I have also gone through the Record and Proceedings of the case. I have also gone through the evidence led by the parties during the trial. Since Mr. Mehta has confined his argument mainly in connection with acquisition of alternative premises as contemplated under Section 13 (1) (l) of the Act, the revision is required to be decided only on the aforesaid point as to whether can it be said that the plaintiff has acquired alternative accommodation as contemplated under Section 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act? The provision of aforesaid Section 13 (1) (l) provides as under:-"13. The provision of aforesaid Section 13 (1) (l) provides as under:-"13. When landlord may recover possession (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of sections 15 and 15a, a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises, if the Court is satisfied - (l) that the tenant after the coming into operation of this Act has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence. " ( 7 ) IN this revision, the main point required to be considered is that whether the property purchased by 2 sons of the defendant, i. e. Milan and Atul, can be said to be their independent separate property or whether the defendant has purchased the said property in the name of the aforesaid 2 sons? At this stage, some factual aspects are required to be taken into consideration. The son of the defendant - Milan is serving as a Clerk in Khodiyar Potteries drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1650/= in the year 1991. The other son of the defendant - Atul, as per evidence is permanently residing at Bhavnagar and he is a Clerk in Vardhman Cooperative Bank drawing a salary of Rs. 2170. 00. As against that, as per the evidence of the defendant, he was serving as an Officer at Khodiyar Potteries and drawing a salary of Rs. 5000/= and in fact, he was even sent to France by the company in the year 1960. It has come in the evidence that the plot of land at Sihor was purchased by the plaintiff on 6. 7. 1965. At that time, his aforesaid 2 sons were aged 10 and 12 years. It seems that after such purchase, names of all 3 sons i. e. Milan, Atul and Dr. Pankaj were added in the property card. The said plot was sold in 1988. So far as the purchase of flat at Ahmedabad is concerned, the same is in the name of the wife of the defendants son Milan i. e. Maltiben. It seems that after such purchase, names of all 3 sons i. e. Milan, Atul and Dr. Pankaj were added in the property card. The said plot was sold in 1988. So far as the purchase of flat at Ahmedabad is concerned, the same is in the name of the wife of the defendants son Milan i. e. Maltiben. However, so far as the said premises is concerned, since it is in a different city altogether and since there is nothing to show that the defendant has contributed for purchase of the said flat at Ahmedabad, no decree for possession under Section 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act can be passed as it cannot be said to be a suitable acquisition on the part of the defendant. However, so far as the purchase of the house in Patel building is concerned, the same is in the near vicinity of the rented premises itself and the said property was purchased for Rs. 126750. 00. It is required to be noted that the said house is in the name of two sons but the real question to be considered is whether the two sons had sufficient income for constructing the said house or whether the defendant had substantially contributed financially for constructing the said house? ( 8 ) THE defendant, in his evidence at Exh. 121, has stated in his examination in chief in Para 13 that he has got 3 sons i. e. Milan, Atul and Pankaj and till 1986, he was residing with the aforesaid 3 sons in the rented premises. He has stated that his 2 sons have constructed another house adjoining to the rented premises and they have shifted their residence to the newly purchased property. He also stated that now he is residing with his wife and son Dr. Pankaj in the rented premises. He has also stated that he has no share in the said property constructed by his 2 sons. He has also stated in Para 13 of his examination-in-chief that he had purchased a plot but the said plot was sold by him on 5. 9. 1988 (during the pendency of the suit) as he was not in a position to construct over the said property. In his cross-examination, he has admitted in Para 36 that in the passage of the suit premises, there is a table of his son Dr. Pankaj. 9. 1988 (during the pendency of the suit) as he was not in a position to construct over the said property. In his cross-examination, he has admitted in Para 36 that in the passage of the suit premises, there is a table of his son Dr. Pankaj. He has also admitted the fact that medicines and tablets are also lying, including other medical instruments. In Para 39 and 40, he has stated the nature of services performed by his sons Milan and Atul. Relying upon the aforesaid evidence, Mr. Mehta, vehemently submitted that it is really the defendant who has sold away his plot in 1988 and has constructed the house from the said income and having constructed the premises, he cannot be allowed to retain the rented premises. He has also stated that his elder son Milan is serving in Khodiyar Potteries and another son Atul is serving in Vardhman Cooperative Bank and his 3rd son Pankaj is a doctor who, according to the defendant, is staying with him. He has also stated in his evidence that the wife of his son Milan is running a beauty parlour in the name of Shradha Beauty Parlor in the rented premises. He has also stated that when Milan was staying with him, the board for the purpose of advertisement was also placed on the rented premises. He has also stated in the evidence that he has no right, title or interest in the premises purchased by his 2 sons. He has also said in his evidence that he has purchased an open plot in Sihor town near Station area and the very plot has been sold by him on 5. 9. 1988. He has stated that the said plot was purchased by him in his name as well as in the names of his sons but since he was not in a position to construct the same, he sold away the said plot in 1988 during the pendency of the suit. He has stated in the evidence that he has served as a Chief Executive having salary of Rs. 5000/= per month. In the cross-examination in Para 39, he has stated that his son Milan is serving as a Clerk in Khodiyar Potteries and his son Atul is serving as a Clerk in Vardhman Cooperative Bank. He has stated in the evidence that he has served as a Chief Executive having salary of Rs. 5000/= per month. In the cross-examination in Para 39, he has stated that his son Milan is serving as a Clerk in Khodiyar Potteries and his son Atul is serving as a Clerk in Vardhman Cooperative Bank. He has also stated in Para 40 of the cross-examination that his son Atul is staying with his wife and daughter at Bhavnagar since last 8 to 10 years. In the cross-examination in para 44, he has stated that the name of his son Atul is deleted from the ration card and he has not taken separate ration card. He has also stated in the cross-examination that so far as the house purchased in Patel building is concerned, it consists of ground floor, first floor and second floor and it consists of the same area of rented premises. He has stated in the cross-examination in Para 48 that he had sold of open plot in 1988. Of course, he has denied the suggestion that in order to see that he has not to vacate the rented premises, ultimately the suit plot is sold away by him. He has stated in the evidence that he is holding a high post in Khodiyar Potteries and he was sent to France by his company. In Para 50 of his cross-examination, he has stated that the new house is purchased by his sons and the consideration of Rs. 1,25,000. 00 was paid through cheque. From the evidence on record, it is clear that initially the defendant had purchased an open plot which he has sold away in 1988 and after purchase of the said plot, names of his 3 sons were also entered in the record and subsequently in 1988, the premises in Patel building is purchased which is in the name of his 2 sons i. e. Atul and Milan. Mr. Mehta for the petitioner submitted that even if it is presumed that the plot was purchased in the name of HUF then also, the defendant has got equal share in the premises which is subsequently purchased from the income from sale of the said plot in Patel Faliya. He, therefore, submitted that it cannot be said that the plaintiff has absolutely no right, title or interest in the premises which is purchased in the aforesaid Patel Faliya. He, therefore, submitted that it cannot be said that the plaintiff has absolutely no right, title or interest in the premises which is purchased in the aforesaid Patel Faliya. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the evidence on record, it is clear that the defendant has not produced any satisfactory evidence worth the name to point out as to in which manner, the sale consideration was paid at the time of purchasing the new premises in the year 1989. The aforesaid 2 sons of the plaintiff are serving as Clerks. In fact, one of his sons i. e. Atul is serving in Bhavnagar in a different town altogether while the house in question is purchased just adjacent to the rented premises in Sihor town itself. The Panchnama at Exh. 110 shows that in the rented premises, there is a board of Dr. Pankajkumar Shukla who is the son of the defendant and who is a doctor and there is another board in the name of Shradhharadha Beauty Parlour. As discussed earlier, even as per the Panchnama, medical instruments and medicines are also found lying on the table. ( 10 ) CONSIDERING the evidence on record, in my view, there is considerable substance in the argument of Mr. Mehta that the new property is purchased/acquired by the plaintiff in the name of his 2 sons or in any case is purchased from the Joint Family Property and therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant has no right in the newly purchased property. The defendant has not pointed out as to in which manner, the sale consideration is paid. Considering the evidence on record, it seems that the defendant has paid substantial amount for purchase of the said house. The defendant has not examined any relatives/creditors who according to the defendant have given loans to his 2 sons for purchasing the said house. The defendant was serving on a very high post in Khodiyar Potteries. He had purchased open plot on 6. 7. 1965 and at that time, his sons were minor and the said plot was sold in 1988 and thereafter, the new premises were purchased. The defendant was serving on a very high post in Khodiyar Potteries. He had purchased open plot on 6. 7. 1965 and at that time, his sons were minor and the said plot was sold in 1988 and thereafter, the new premises were purchased. The aforesaid circumstances clearly show that the defendant had substantial financial contribution for purchasing the said property, especially, when there is no satisfactory evidence at all on the record to show that his sons have contributed any amount or in which manner the so-called loan was obtained. It cannot be said that the defendant has no right, title or interest in the premises which is purchased in 1988. On appreciation of the evidence, it cannot be said that he is totally a stranger and cannot assert his right for occupying the premises alongwith his 2 sons and, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the defendant can be said to have acquired the said premises as provided under Section 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act. The Trial Court has found that the defendant is having all the control so far as the aforesaid premises is concerned and the Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, has found that the defendant himself has purchased the said property in the name of his sons and is managing the affairs of the said house. The Trial Court also found that the defendant and his aforesaid 2 sons were all staying together even in the rented premises all throughout and that the defendant has substantially contributed in purchasing the new house. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court has, therefore, found that the defendant and his aforesaid 2 sons can be considered as one unit. Considering the evidence on record, it is clear that the defendant has failed to prove as to in which manner, the amount was paid and by whom. Considering the totality of the evidence on record, it is clear that the new premises is purchased either by the defendant alongwith his 2 sons or in any case from joint family property and it cannot be said that the defendant is a total stranger so far as the construction of the said house is concerned. Considering the totality of the evidence on record, it is clear that the new premises is purchased either by the defendant alongwith his 2 sons or in any case from joint family property and it cannot be said that the defendant is a total stranger so far as the construction of the said house is concerned. This can be considered in view of the fact that the plot purchased by the defendant in 1965 was sold away in 1988 and thereafter, the new premises were purchased. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, in my view, the Appellate Court has committed error in ignoring the evidence on record and in coming to the conclusion that the new premises were purchased by the sons of the defendant from their own funds. The Appellate Court has observed in Para 12 of the judgement that in the instant case, both the sons are residing separately and both are married and having their own independent income and that they have acquired the new house from their own income as well as income of the joint family property i. e. from selling of the plot of joint family property and they have purchased the said property from their own share and the said 2 sons have paid the deficit amount by raising loan from the relatives. The Appellate Court found that, simply because the father has played role for helping the sons in getting loan, that itself is not enough for coming to the conclusion that the new house is also purchased by the defendant-tenant. On the aforesaid ground. The Trial Court has also, on appreciation of evidence, found that the defendant has played a substantive financial role in purchasing the above property. However, as per the evidence which is discussed earlier, in my view, the Trial Court is justified in coming to the conclusion that it is the defendant who has substantially contributed or that he had major financial role in the matter of purchasing the new house and the open plot, which he had purchased many years back in Sihor Town itself, was subsequently sold in the year 1988 and thereafter, the premises in Patel Building is acquired. Therefore, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the said amount of sale price of the said plot is invested in purchasing the new premises in Patel Building, especially when the plaintiff purchased the aforesaid plot in the year 1965, when his sons were, admittedly, minors and subsequently, names of his sons were entered in the property record. Since the suit was pending at the relevant time and in order to come out from the clutches of Section 13 (1) (l) of the Rent Act, it seems that the property is purchased solely in the name of the aforesaid 2 sons. So far as the provision of Section 13 (1) (l) is concerned, it is not necessary that the tenant should have valid title over the acquired property. Considering the evidence on record, it can safely be said that the defendant can occupy the said premises along with his sons. It has also come in evidence that even before such purchase, the defendant and his sons were residing together and all were having cordial relationship all throughout. Considering the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the entire consideration was paid by the said 2 sons from their own income, especially when no evidence is produced by examining relatives or even the sons to substantiate the say that the said house was purchased from their independent income. ( 11 ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid aspect of the matter, in my view, the trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the defendant has acquired alternative accommodation, as provided by Section 13 (1) (l) of the Act. The defendant has not even examined the so-called relatives who have given loans to his sons for purchase of the said house nor is there any pass book or account book produced on record. No details of bank account are produced. There is nothing to show that the so-called loan is repaid by his sons to his relatives from whom the loan was taken. As against that, there is evidence on record that after selling away the open plot, subsequently, the new premises is purchased in the Patel Building. The defendant has not even examined his son Atul or the relative, i. e. uncle or aunt, who, according to the defendant, has given such loan. The defendant has not led any documentary evidence to prove that his sons had taken the loan. The defendant has not even examined his son Atul or the relative, i. e. uncle or aunt, who, according to the defendant, has given such loan. The defendant has not led any documentary evidence to prove that his sons had taken the loan. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the finding given by the appellate court requires to be reversed and on the said point, regarding acquisition of alternative accommodation, finding of the trial court is required to be restored. The appellate court, however, has rightly found that since the plaint was required to be amended, said aspect of acquisition of alternative accommodation can be considered in the suit. The trial court committed an error by negativing the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that the said alternative accommodation is acquired after filing of the suit. In my view, the trial court was not right in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff on that ground, as the said acquired premises was available at the time of passing of the decree and even the subsequent event can be taken into consideration especially when the plaint was required to be amended and the parties have led evidence on this point in the suit. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff is required to be decreed on the ground of acquisition of alternative accommodation. The decree, however, cannot be passed on any other grounds, such as permanent alterations, change of user or arrears of rent, as the courts below have given cogent reasons for negativing the claim of the plaintiff on the said grounds. ( 12 ) THE suit of the plaintiff for possession is accordingly decreed. The defendant is directed to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. However, there shall be no order as to costs all throughout. Rule is accordingly made absolute, with no order as to costs. R and P be sent back to the Trial Court forthwith. .