NARAYAN PERSHAD Vs. SONA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition raises a short but important point of law. It arises from an application filed on 10th June, 1958 by the respondent-landlady for eviction against the petitioner tenant. It was inter alia alleged in the petition that the tenant is a wilful defaulter and that the landlady wants the house for her own occupation. The tenant resisted the petition denying that he was ever a wilful defaulter. He also disputed the bona fide requirement of the house by the landlady for her occupation. The Rent Controller, after recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed the petition. He held that the tenant is not a wilful defaulter and that the landlady has failed to prove that she requires the house bona fide for her own occupation. The landlady, aggrieved by that order of the Rent Controller, went in appeal.

(2.) The appellate authority allowed the appeal and directed the eviction of the tenant, holding that the landlady has not proved that the tenant is a wilful defaulter. The appellate authority has, however, found that the landlady bona fide requires the premises for her own occupation. It is from this order of the appellate authority that the tenant has filed this revision petition.

(3.) The principal question to which I have to address myself is whether the landlady has made out her case in regard to her bona fide requirement of the house for her own occupation. It is not disputed that the case is governed by the Hyderabad House (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, hereinafter called the Act. Section 15, as far as it is relevant for this enquiry, is in the following terms :-