THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4247 OF 2007 DATED: 24-02-2011 Between: Naseer Mohammed. .... PETITIONER And Syed Habeebunnisa Begum. .... RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 21.07.2007, in R.A.No.282 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed confirming the order of eviction, dated 09-09-2004, passed by the learned Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C.No.269 of 2003, granting two months’ time for eviction. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. Respondent herein filed the petition for eviction against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents for the period from June, 2002 to 2003. It is not disputed that the petitioner herein is the tenant of the schedule premises belonging to the respondent having taken the same on lease in 1981 on a monthly rent of Rs.70/- and subsequently the same was enhanced from time to time upto Rs.400/- per month. It was alleged by the respondent-landlord that the petitioner has fallen in arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.5200/- for 13 months from June, 2002 to 2003. Respondent-landlord also sought eviction on the ground that she has no other house and she is residing in a rented house paying rent of Rs.1800/- per month. Petitioner-tenant resisted the eviction, denying wilful default in payment of rents and also bona fide requirement of the respondent-landlord. 4. During enquiry before the learned Rent Controller, the landlord was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 and P5 were marked and the tenant was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R17 were marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Rent Controller gave a finding that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of the rents and also upheld the plea of bona fide requirement of personal occupation of the landlord. Accordingly, eviction of tenant was ordered granting him two months’ time to evict the premises. Aggrieved by the same, landlord preferred an appeal and the learned appellate authority confirmed the order of eviction, upholding the findings on both the grounds of wilful default and bona fide requirement. 6. It is stated that the tenant is not presently residing in the schedule premises as the schedule premises has become dilapidated and totally uninhabitable and it is also not disputed that the respondent-landlord is residing in a rented premises paying monthly rent of Rs.1800/- and she is not having any other house. Under those circumstances and on perusal of the entire material on record and the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority, it is held that the eviction ordered by the Courts below on both the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents and bona fide requirement for personal occupation by the landlord do not call for any interference as the findings are based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. In the circumstances, it is held that there are no merits in the revision and the impugned order of eviction does not call for any interference. 7. In the result, Civil Revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th February, 2011. Tsy