Judgment Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. None appears for the Respondent. 2. The Respondent is the landlord/original Plaintiff and the Petitioner is the original Defendant/tenant. The suit premises comprises of one room. The Respondent-landlord filed a suit against the Petitioner for eviction and for recovery of water charges at the rate of Rs.12/-per month. It was alleged that the Petitioner is an employee of the Post and Telegraph Department who has been allotted government quarters. It was alleged that the Petitioner has kept the suit premises closed for more than six months prior to the date of institution of the suit. It was alleged that the Petitioner has built a house in the city of Ulhasnagar where the suit premises is situated. It was contended that the Respondent needs the suit premises for his own use and occupation. The suit was contested by the Petitioner by filing a Written Statement. He denied the money claim made by the Respondent. He denied that he has built any house at Ulhasnagar. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The Trial Court held that though a case was made out by the Respondent that the Petitioner has built a house in Ulhasnagar in the year 1976-77, the case of the Petitioner was that it was constructed by his son. Therefore, the Trial Court held that there was no acquisition of suitable residence by the Respondent herself. 3. An Appeal was preferred by the Respondent. In the Appeal, apart from passing money decree directing the Petitioner to pay water charges at the rate of Rs.12/-per month and the rent at the rate of Rs.18.68 ps per month, a decree for possession was passed on the ground of acquisition of suitable residence. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has taken the Court through the findings recorded by both the Courts below. He submitted that as in the earlier suit being Regular Civil Suit No.164 of 1975, the standard rent was fixed at Rs.15/-per month with the consent of the parties, the general increase in the property taxes allegedly made by the local authority cannot be a ground to disturb the said decree. He submitted that the order of fixing standard rent in absence of any application for fixation of standard rent being filed by the Respondent is illegal. He submitted that the order of fixing standard rent in absence of any application for fixation of standard rent being filed by the Respondent is illegal. He submitted that the burden was on the Respondent to prove the acquisition of suitable residence by the Petitioner and the said burden has not been discharged by showing that the house has been built by the Petitioner himself. He urged that there was no reason to disturb the finding of the Trial Court that the Petitioner's son has built the house. He, therefore, submitted that the decree passed by the Appellate Court is illegal. 5. I have considered the submissions. The decree for eviction has been passed only on the ground of acquisition of suitable residence under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The said ground of eviction is that the tenant has acquired or built a residential accommodation which is suitable to him. The contention of the Respondent was that in the year 1976-77, the Petitioner constructed a chawl consisting of five rooms at Ulhasnagar where the suit premises is situated. His case was that in the year 1989, the Petitioner's daughter occupied one of the five rooms. The case made out by the Petitioner was that the structure consisting of five rooms has been constructed by his son. The Appellate Court has noted that in the cross-examination of the husband of the Respondent not even a suggestion was given that the structure is built by the Petitioner's son and that the Petitioner has no connection with the said structure. The Appellate Court has referred to the examination-in-chief of the Petitioner in which he has stated that the said structure at Ulhasnagar has been constructed by his son Anil who was residing with him and the said structure was unauthorised. He stated that his daughter and four tenants were occupying the said structure. The Appellate Court has noted that in the cross-examination, the Petitioner admitted that the construction of the structure was done in the year 1976-77. He admitted that his son had demanded money from his wife for construction of the structure and accordingly, the amount was paid by the Petitioner's wife. 6. Thus, it is an admitted position that in the said structure, one room is occupied by the Petitioner's daughter. He admitted that his son had demanded money from his wife for construction of the structure and accordingly, the amount was paid by the Petitioner's wife. 6. Thus, it is an admitted position that in the said structure, one room is occupied by the Petitioner's daughter. The Petitioner did not dispute the existence of the structure but came out with a case that his son has constructed it illegally. Surprisingly, the Petitioner did not examine his son as a witness. The Petitioner did not produce any evidence to show that the construction was carried out by his son. Therefore, the Appellate Court accepted the case made out by the Respondent that the house must have been constructed by the Petitioner. The structure is of five rooms, out of which one was admittedly occupied by the Petitioner's daughter after institution of the present suit. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to find fault with the finding recorded by the Appellate Court on the issue of acquisition of suitable residence by the Petitioner, as the said finding is based on oral as well as documentary evidence on record. 7. As far as money decree is concerned, it appears to be an admitted position that in the earlier suit, the standard rent was fixed at Rs.15/-per month by consent of the parties. There was no order passed thereafter by the Competent Court fixing the standard rent in respect of the suit premises at the rate exceeding Rs.15/-per month. Therefore, only on the basis of the demand allegedly made by the Municipal Corporation, the rent in excess of the standard rent which is fixed under the decree of the Court could not have been fixed by the Appellate Court and there could not have been any decree for recovery of the rent at the said enhanced rate. 8. Therefore, the Petition must succeed in part and I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The decree for possession passed by the Appellate Court is confirmed; (ii) The money decree passed by the Appellate Court of fixing the water charges at Rs.12/-per month and rent at Rs.18.68 per month is quashed and set aside and consequently, the money decree passed by the Appellate Court directing the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.30.68 per month stands quashed and set aside. However, the decree of eviction stands confirmed; (iii) The Writ Petition is partly allowed on above terms; (iv) The Rule is partly made absolute with no order as to costs; (v) On the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the interim relief granted earlier of staying the execution of the decree for possession will continue to operate for a period of three months from today.