V RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. S N LOGANATHAMUDAUAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the tenant of a non-residential building of which the respondent is the landlord. The respondent filed an eviction petition in the Court of the Rent Controller, Chengalpattu on two grounds, i.e. (1) wilful default in payment of rent by the appellant, and (2) bona fide personal requirement of the landlord for the purpose of setting up his son's business.

(2.) On a perusal of the evidence, the learned Rent Controller held that there was no wilful default in payment of rent and also that the landlord had not established his bona fide personal requirement. Vide order dated 22-11-1990, the eviction petition was, therefore, dismissed. The respondent challenged the order of the Rent Controller before the appellate authority. The appellate authority agreed with the Rent Controller that there was no wilful default in payment of rent on the part of the tenant but held that the ground of bona fide personal requirement had been established by the landlord and passed an order of eviction, setting aside the order of the Rent Controller vide judgment dated 31-1-1992. The order of the appellate authority was put in issue by the tenant through Civil Revision Petition No. 863/92 before the High Court of Madras. A learned single Judge of the High Court agreed with the findings recorded by the appellate authority and held that the landlord had established bona fide personal requirement and vide judgment and order dated 24-12-1996, upheld the order of the appellate authority and ordered eviction of the tenant.

(3.) Aggrieved, the tenant is before us by special leave.