TARUN KUMAR SAHU Vs. DHIRENDRA NATH DATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant in the present Civil Review has been found to be the landlord in respect of the disputed premises. He had filed a case under the Orissa House Rent Control Act for eviction of present opposite party No. 1. The House Rent Controller while negativing the contention of the present petitioner regarding alleged subletting and damage to the disputed premises, passed an order of eviction on the grounds that the tenant had wilfully defaulted in payment of rent and the landlord required bona fide the house for his occupation. The appeal of the tenant having been dismissed by the appellate authority, OJC No. 3721 of 1990 was filed in this Court. The said writ application was allowed by judgment dated 29.7.1991 and the order of eviction was set aside on the finding that there was no wilful default in payment of rent.

(2.) AFTER the Civil Review was admitted, notice was published in newspaper regarding the hearing of the Civil Review. However, in spite of such publication, there is no appearance on behalf of the tenant -opposite party No. 1 in the review petition.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the House Rent Controller has passed an order of eviction on the ground of wilful default as well as on the ground of bona fide requirement. The question of bona fide requirement was considered by the appellate authority in paragraph -9 of its judgment. For convenience, the finding of the appellate authority as available from the original judgment in the lower Court record is quoted hereiinder: