IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1386/1998 Madhav Gopal Bhave Petitioner Vs. Chandrakant Chonkar and Ors. Respondents Mr.Mehul Shah i/b Bharati Joshi for the petitioner None for the respondents Coram : Anoop V.Mohta,J. Date : 16th October,2008. ORAL JUDGMENT 1] The petitioner/tenant has challenged the concurrent findings given by the Courts below with regard to the decree of possession on the ground of acquiring the residential accommodation u/s 13(1)(l) and non use of the premises u/s 13 (1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act. 2] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the acquisition of said alternative premises was for the particular reason and also there was reason not to use the said premises. 3] It is admitted position that the petitioner has acquired alternate residential premises and not using the tenanted 2 premises. This contention has no substance considering the scheme and object of the Rent Control Act .The requirement is whether the tenant has acquired alternative residential premises and whether he is not using the premises in question for long. Both the Courts after considering the material on record and evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion in favour of the landlord on both the counts. Even otherwise the record is sufficient to demonstrate the admitted position. 4] The another point which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised is about the decree in declaration suit whereby the Court observed that the petitioner is tenant . Prior to the said declaration /decree the landlord has filed suit for possession on the above stated grounds and ,therefore,also the impugned order ought not to have been passed against the petitioner/tenant .This contention has no force for a simple reason that the landlord treated the petitioner as a tenant as though his suit for declaration to that effect is pending , he has filed the present suit for eviction. Therefore, this ultimately no way affects and/or suffers the case of the landlord/respondent who filed such suit for eviction treating the petitioner as a tenant.This also no way supports the case of the petitioner in his favour. 5] Having considered the views of both the Courts below 3 and the admitted position on record about acquisition of residential accommodation and admitted non use of the premises for long ,I see there is no reason to interfere with the said reasoning. 6] In the result the petition is dismissed. 7] The interim orders also stand vacated. 8] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks three months time to vacate the premises.Considering the fact that this Court has already granted interim relief ,three months time is granted ,if the petitioner has not already vacated the premises,on condition of filing usual undertaking of the petitioners and the legal representatives who are residing in the said premises within four weeks. (Anoop V.Mohta,J.)