THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3096 OF 2008 DATED:19-10-2010. Between Smt. Y.Balamani … Petitioner And N.Naresh Chary …Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3096 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 11-06-2008 in R.A.No.144 of 2005, on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in setting aside the order of the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, dated 29-04-2005 in R.C.No.97 of 2000, wherein the petition filed by the petitioner herein was allowed directing the respondent herein to vacate the petition schedule premises within three months. 2. The petitioner herein filed the petition for eviction of the respondent herein from the petition schedule premises on three grounds, firstly; bona fide requirement, secondly; the respondent committed willful default in payment of rent and thirdly; change and use of premises in question. Both Courts below held that there was no willful default in payment of rents to the landlord and that there was no change of using the premises other than the purpose for which it was given lease to the tenant. The findings on those two aspects are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. None of the findings is shown to be improper, illegal or incorrect. 3. Coming to the other ground i.e., bona fide requirement, admittedly, the petitioner is not having any other residential premises. She is a widow and no body there to look after her needs and residential accommodation. There is no body to give shelter. She is completely depending upon the mercy of her brother. As the petitioner is not having any other residential accommodation, certainly the weight of balance should be in favour of the landlord as she required it for her own genuine residence. But the appellate Court came to the conclusion that the suit filed by the tenant for enforcement of contract basing on the agreement of sale was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal is pending, the petitioner is not entitled for the premises under the guise of bona fide requirement. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the agreement of sale executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent in respect of the same property was fabricated and that is the reason why the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondent. 5. The execution of agreement of sale alleged by the petitioner in favour of the respondent is pending consideration before the competent Court of law. No finding can be given on that aspect. For the reason of pendency of appeal, the requirement of the petitioner for use of premises for her shelter cannot be denied. Considering the fact that the petitioner has no other residential accommodation, the trial Court rightly directed the tenant to vacate the premises. The said order was set aside by the appellate Court. Though the power of the Revisional Court is truncated one, at the same time, when the finding is perverse and is not based upon admissible evidence, the same can be interfered with exercising the revisional jurisdiction. It is not the case of the respondent that with a mala fide intention, the petitioner filed the eviction petition with a view to get more rents if he is evicted. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is not having any other residential premises. In such a case, the appellate Court ought to have confirmed the order of the trial Court. The pendency of the appeal filed by the respondent herein is nothing to do with the determination of the point involved in the petition. On the premise that the appeal is pending, the relief prayed for by the petitioner was denied, which is perverse. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the judgment, dated 11-06-2008 in R.A.No.144 of 2005, on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, and confirming the order of the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, dated 29-04-2005 in R.C.No.97 of 2000. The respondent-tenant is granted four months time from today to vacate the petition schedule premises, failing which, the petitioner shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED:19.10.2010 Hsd