& Ors Vs. Ram Kumar Verma  INSC 104 (17 February 1998)
A Hmad, M. Jagannadha Rao M. Jagannadha Rao, J.
17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1998 Present:
Mr. Justice S.Saghir Ahmad Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Jagannadha Rao Ms. Usha Reddy,
Adv. for the appellants. Chaitanya Sidharth and R.C.Verma, Advs. for the
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
is an appeal by the tenant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Civil Revision Petition No. 56 of 1994
dated 6.3.1997. By that judgment, the learned Single Judge reversed the
concurrent findings of the appellate authority as well as the Rent Controller
and ordered the eviction petition in favour of the respondent-landlord.
eviction application was filed by the respondent against appellants in the year
1985 on three grounds namely wilful default, bonafide requirement for
self-occupation and sub-letting. The learned Rent Controller by his judgment
dated 31.7.1988 dismissed the eviction application.
appeal by the landlord the appeliate authority again framed three points for
consideration namely with regard to wilful default, bonafide requirement and
sub-letting and came to the conclusion that none of the grounds was proved.
result, the appeal of the landlord was dismissed on 20.9.1993.
landlord then filed revision in the High Court. It was merely observed by the
High Court as follows:
gone through the orders of the courts below, I feel that the courts that the
petitioner has not made out his bonafide requirement and that his bonafide
requirement is arbitrary. There is evidence to show that the landlord requires
the premises in question for starting his business. Hence both the orders under
revision deserve to be set aside. Accordingly they are set aside." Having
held so, the learned Judge granted two years time i.e. upto 6.3.1989 for
this appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the tenant that the
High Court has not considered and discussed the relevant evidence on the basis
of which the Rent Controller and the appellate authority had held that the
landlord had not established his bonafide requirement.
other hand, it is contended for the respondent- landlord that this case is not
a fit one for interference by this Court.
of the view that the High Court while reversing the concurrent findings of the
appellate authority and the Rent Controller ought to have considered and
discussed the evidence on which the said authorities had held against the
landlord. It was not sufficient for the High Court merely to sate that there
was evidence to show that the bonafides of the landlord was proved. We are,
therefore, constrained to set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit
the same to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law as early as
possible. Appeal allowed and the matter remanded to the High Court accordingly.