ORDER: The landlady is the revision petitioner. The revision is filed against the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority allowing the R.C.A.No.92 of 1997 filed by the tenant against the eviction ordered by the learned Rent Controller on the ground of own use and occupation in respect of the petition residential premises.

2. The landlady filed the Rent Control Original Petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for 8 months from December, 1991 to July, 1992 at the rate of Rs.450 per month and that the petition premises is required bona fide for own use and occupation with her family members and stating that she is residing in the rented building.

3. The Rent Control Original Petition was opposed by the respondent/tenant by filing counter, in which it is stated that even during lifetime of the landlady’s father Rajagopal Naidu, he was owning other buildings in which he was residing in one of such buildings and the revision petitioner is also residing in her own building and therefore, the requirement of the petition premises for own use and occupation is without bona fide. It is further stated that the respondent has not committed default wilfully in payment of rent as claimed by the revision petitioner/landlady. Since rival claims were made for the rents by the legal heirs on the death of Rajagopal Naidu, the respondent/tenant was unable to ascertain as to whom the rent is to be paid and therefore, the respondent/tenant has not committed default much-less wilful default in payment of rent as claimed by the landlady and further even in the first hearing date of the Rent Control Original petition, entire arrears of rental amount have been deposited into Court.

4. Before the learned Rent controller, the revision petitioner/landlady examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8 on the side of the landlady and the respondent/tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Ex.B-1 on the side of the tenant. Considering such evidence, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground that the requirement of the petition residential premises sought for own use and occupation is bona fide, though denied eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent finding that the tenant has not committed wilful default as claimed. The tenant preferred the appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in respect of the eviction ordered on the ground of own use and occupation and the appeal was allowed recording finding that the requirement of the petition residential premises for own use and occupation by the landlady/revision petitioner is without bona fide. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority also confirmed the finding of the learned Rent Controller that the default in payment of rent as claimed for 8 months from December, 1991 to July, 1992 cannot be construed as wilful, inasmuch as the entire arrears of rent also was paid even before the first hearing date of the Rent Control Original Petition. Such order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is under challenge in this civil revision petition by the landlady.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlady argued that inasmuch as the landlady is residing with her husband and children in a rented premises, the requirement of the petition residential premises sought for own use and occupation by the landlady is proved as bona fide and therefore, the contra finding in this regard by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is to be set aside. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlady further contended that though no appeal or cross appeal was filed against the order of the learned Rent Controller denying the eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent by the landlady, inasmuch as that aspect has been considered by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and confirm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document