( 1 ) THE revision petitioner assails the order dated 24-3-1999 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, in R. C. A. No. 2 of 1996. Revision petitioner is the landlady who filed the petition seeking eviction of the tenant in R. C. No. 17 of 1990.

( 2 ) IT is averred inter alia in the petition that the premises bearing No. 4-8-824/b was originally belonged to the petitioner s mother-in-law who later willed away the said premises in her favour. It was divided into two mulgies by constructing a wall in between. The premises in question was let out to the respondent/tenant on the condition of paying a monthly rent of Rs. 840/ -. The respondent paid the rents at that rate till the end of March, 1993 and thereafter committed wilful default. That apart, the premises is required bona fide for doing wholesale cloth business by her husband along with adjacent premises which too was let out to another tenant.

( 3 ) THE respondent/tenant resisted that petition mentioning inter alia in the counter that he has been running a tailoring shop therein for the last several years and that he never committed any default, much less wilful default. The husband of the petitioner used to collect the rents and sometimes he used to pay the rents by means of money order. When he sent the money orders for the months of April and May, 1992, the petitioner with an ulterior motive evaded the receipt of money orders. She did not specify the bank account into which the rents could be credited. Therefore, he filed R. C. No. 19 of 1992 seeking permission of the Rent Controller to recover the rents. The husband of the petitioner who used to do cloth business in a rented premises situate in Station Road, Nizamabad, sold away the running business and, therefore, that clearly establishes that he does not wish to do cloth business at all. If really the husband of the petitioner intends to do cloth business he can as well utilize the space available over the mulgi and adjacent mulgi for his business without harassing the respondent.

( 4 ) APPRECIATING the evidence, both oral and documentary adduced on either side, the learned Rent Controller was of the view that there had been no default on the part of the tenant. However, on the ground of bona fide requirement, he directed the tenant to be evicted within two months from the date of the order. Having been aggrieved by the said order, the tenant carried the matter in appeal in R. C. A. No. 2 of 1996. The learned Senior Civil Judge, as aforesaid, under the impugned order, reversed the finding of the Rent Controller which is now being assailed.

( 5 ) THERE has been no gainsaying about the jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties inter se. The quantum of rent is also not in dispute. Although the eviction petition has been filed on twin considerations of wilful default and bona fide requirement, the ground of wilful default having not been accepted by both the Courts below, has not been pressed by the petitioner. The only ground upon which the petitioner is seeking eviction of the tenant is bona fide requirement.

( 6 ) IT is clearly emerging out of the record that the husband of the petitioner used to do cloth business in a rented premises situate at Station Road, Nizamabad. Earlier, he was an educated unemployee. The premises in question and the adjacent premises bear one municipal number and earlier it was one premises which was willed in favour of the petitioner by her late mother-in-law. The premises was divided into two by constructing a wall in between and it was let out to the respondent/tenant for carrying out tailoring business and the adjacent premises was let out to the other tenant for carrying on cloth business. Obviously, the premises is situate in a locality where people do wholesale business in cloth. Having regard to the above factual scenario, it has to be seen as to whether the requirement is bona fide or is influenced by any oblique motive.

( 7 )