M V NARSIMHA RAO Vs. NARSAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant. The landlady filed the petition for eviction on the ground that she bona fide required the premises for her personal occupation, that the petitioner had committed wilful default in payment of rent that the petitioner had made alterations and additions to the premises without her permission, thereby deminishing the value of the premises. The learned Reit Controller found that the landlady required the premises boaa fide for her personal occupation that the petitioner committed wilful default in payment of rent for the month of September, 1981 and consequently directed eviction of the petitioner. The appellate authority confirmed the order of the Rent Controller, agreeing with the finding that the petitioner committed wilful default in payment of rent. On the question of bona fide requirement, the appellate authority held against the landlady. Both the Tribunals held against the landlady on the question of alterations and additions made to the premises.

(2.) Aggrieved by the side order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

(3.) The respondents, who are the legal representative of the landlady, filed cross-objections, questioning the finding of the appellate authority, on the question of bona fide requirement for personal occupation of the premises by the respondents