2009 (9) TMI 994 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves the High Court's interference in the revisional jurisdiction with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower Courts regarding the eviction of a tenant based on the landlady's bonafide requirement and willful default in rent payment.

Summary:

Bonafide requirement of premises:
The landlady filed for eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3)(a)(i)(a) u/s 10(2)(i) of the Act, claiming bonafide requirement of the premises. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rejected the eviction petition, stating the landlady failed to prove the tenant was a defaulter in rent payment and that her bonafide need was not established. The High Court set aside these findings based on the landlady's age and desire to settle in Vijayawada, despite having two houses in Hyderabad. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference was unjustified as the landlady's desire alone did not prove genuine requirement, reinstating the lower Courts' decision.

Willful default in rent payment:
Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority found no willful default in rent payment by the tenant for specific months. The High Court affirmed this finding and did not consider this ground for eviction. The Supreme Court agreed with this aspect and emphasized that the High Court should have upheld the lower Courts' decisions on this matter.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the decisions of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, rejecting the application for eviction. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.