MOHAMMED SULTAN Vs. RAMCHAND T TOURAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Balchand, Counsel representing the petitioner and Ms.G.Sudha, Counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) One Mohammad Sultan, Revision petitioner/landlord filed Civil Revision Petition 4176/95 as against an order made in R.A.No.252/91 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The self-same landlord filed Civil Revision Petition 1614/96 as against an order made in R.A.No.376/91 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. These two rent appeals were preferred as against an order made in R.C.No.2320/86 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

(3.) Sri Balchand, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner/landlord had explained how two Rent Appeals were preferred. The learned Counsel also commented that the learned Rent Controller though had negatived the ground of wilful default, had arrived at the correct conclusion relating to bonafide personal requirement which was also reversed by the appellate authority. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and had explained that Patancheru, at any stretch of imagination, cannot be treated as part and parcel of the City or town since eviction in the present eviction petition is sought for relating to a building in the City. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court thoroughly through the evidence available on record. In all fairness, the learned Counsel submitted that as far as the ground of wilful default is concerned, since findings are concurrent findings, serious arguments cannot be advanced in this regard. But however, the learned Counsel had emphasized that as far as the ground of bonafide personal requirement is concerned, the reversal by the appellate authority is totally unsustainable and on this ground, the Revision petitioner/landlord is bound to succeed.