G GANGA REDDY Vs. P MADHAVAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has preferred this revision petition against the order of eviction passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, Hyderabad in R.A.No.149 of 1998. The jural relationship between the landlord and tenant is not in dispute. The landlord has contended that there was wilful default in payment of rents regarding the premises durina Auaust 1995 to November 1995 and the shop was required for his bona fide requirement to run business by his sons. The same is opposed by the tenant alleging that he has tendered the rents by way of demand draft as well as money order and he has not committed any default. The tenant has also resisted eviction that there was no bona fide requirement for the landlord to seek eviction. The IV Additional Rent Controller gave a finding that there was wilful default in payment of rents and there was no bona fide requirement for the landlord to claim the premises for his personal use and ordered eviction in R.C.No. 787 of 1995. Thereupon, the tenant preferred an appeal in R.A.No. 149 of 1998. The learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirmed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal, Aggrieved by the same, this revision has been preferred by the tenant.

(2.) It is mainly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that there is no wilful default in this case since he has tendered the rents by sending demand draft and also sent the amount by money order, which has been refused. It is further contended that the findings arrived at are not based on facts.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, who is landlord, contends that concurrent findings of fact have been given and there is no need to interfere with the eviction orders passed. He has placed reliance on the decision reported in T.S.Prakash v. Xavier Emmanuel wherein it is stated at para 10 as under: