MANIK HALDER Vs. POLAMRAJU LAVANYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has preferred this revision against the judgment and decree dated 30.7.2003 in R.C.A. No.9 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge- cum-Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ongole, ordering eviction.

(2.) The facts that are required for consideration can be stated as follows: The respondent, who is landlady, has sought eviction of the revision petitioner being the tenant from the schedule premises on two grounds, namely, wilful default in payment of rents and bona fide requirement for personal use. The same is resisted by the tenant stating that she was accepting the rents sent by money orders and he had not committed any wilful default. It is also contended by the tenant that several shops in possession of the landlady fell vacant and she did not commence any business, she does not require the premises bona fide for occupation. It is also contended that she has not disclosed the nature of business, which she proposes to commence. After enquiry the learned Rent Controller, Ongole negatived both contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the eviction application in R.C.C.No.8 of 2000. Thereupon, the matter is carried by the landlady in appeal before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. The Appellate Authority allowed R.C.A.No.9 of 2001 accepting the contentions of the landlady on the ground of bona fide personal use while confirming the finding relating to wilful default arrived at by the Rent Controller. Thereupon, he has ordered eviction of the tenant. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant has preferred this revision.

(3.) The jurisdiction of the revisional Court has been clearly laid down by the Apex Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta, AIR 1999 SC 2507, while determining the bona fide need or genuine need. The relevant portion at Paras 11, 12, 13, 14 and 22 read as follows: