M C NARENDRANATH Vs. A KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the order of the lower appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial court and allowing the eviction petition of the landlady.

(2.) The brief of the case are : That the landlady is the owner of the business premises in which the petitioner- tenant is doing the business. The landlady filed the petition for eviction on three grounds (1) wilful default, (2) sub-lease, and (3) that the premises is required bonafide for personal occupation. The contention is that the three sons of the landlady passed M B.B.S., and they are doctors and they want to set up a dispensary and a laboratory. The suit shop is located in the main bazar and there are number of medical shops. The landlady examined her son as PW 1. The respondent examined R W 1 and R W 2. The trial court gave a finding against the landlady on all the issues. Against that the landlady filed an appeal. The lower appellate court also confirmed the finding of the trial Court on the points of wilful default and the sublease, but, however, reversed the finding of the trial Court on the point of bonafide requirement and held that there is a bonafide requirement for the landlady. and allowed the appeal. Against that order a revision was filed in this court earlier. This court allowed the said revision and remanded the matter to the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court again after considering the entire material on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides held that there is a bonafide requirement for the landlady. Against that order, the present revision is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that except the self assertion that the premises is required for the bonafide requirement, there is no evidence on record to support the assertion of the landlady. According to the evidence of P W 1, three years back another premises became vacant; and when that is vacantly available the landlady can use the same instead of proceeding with this. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the landlady has got three sons who are all unemployees, one is working at Hyderabad in a private nursing home and another is residing at Kurnool, while P W 1 is the youngest. Therefore, there is every need of accommodation for the family. The lower appellate Court correctly held that there is a bonafide requirement. In view of the above circumstances, the only point that has to be considered, is whether there is a bonafide requirement of the premises or not ?