S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 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:"11. Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control act, 1958 finding its place in Chapter III-A of the Act was inserted into the body of the main Act by Act No. 18 of 1976 with effect from 1 -12-1975. It provides for a special procedure to be followed for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide need. Obviously, this ground for 262 eviction of the tenant has been treated on a footing different from the one on which other grounds for eviction of the tenant stand. Section 25-B is a self-contained provision in the sense that remedy against an order passed by the Rent Controller thereunder is also provided by that provision itself. Sub-section (8) provides that no appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the controller in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 25-B; provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the controller under this section is according to law (or not), call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit . The phraseology of the provision as reproduced hereinbefore provides an interesting reading placed in juxtaposition with the phraseology employed by the Legislature in drafting Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the latter provision the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is circumscribed by the subordinate Court having committed one of the three errors, namely (i) having exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (ii) having failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (iii) having exercised its jurisdiction with illegality or material irregularity. Under the proviso to subsection (8) of Section 25-B, the expression governing the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court is for the purpose of satisfying if an order made by the Controller is according to law . The revisional jurisdiction exercisable by the high Court under Section 25-B (8) is not so limited as is under Section 115, CPC nor so wide as that of an Appellate Court. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document