http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: K.URMILA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAM KUMAR VERMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/02/1998

BENCH: S. SAGHIR A HMAD, M. JAGANNADHA RAO

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1998 Present:              Hon’ble 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 Respondent                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.      Leave granted.      This 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.      The 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.      On 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. In the  result, the  appeal of the landlord was dismissed on 20.9.1993.      The landlord  then filed revision in the High Court. It was merely observed by the High Court as follows:      "Having 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    aside.  Accordingly  they  are  set      aside."      Having held  so, the  learned Judge  granted two  years time i.e. upto 6.3.1989 for vacation.      In 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. On the  other hand,  it is  contended  for  the  respondent- landlord that this case is not a fit one for interference by this Court.      We are  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.