HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No.2343 of 2007 Dated 07-10-2010 Between: Yousuf Khan ……..Petitioner Vs. Shahida Begum ………Respondents HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No.2343 of 2007 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 17-04-2007 in R.A.No.325 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderbad, confirming the order passed in R.C.No.38 of 1999, dated 21-09-2006, on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. 2. The facts of the case which lead to the filing of the revision are that the petitioner is the tenant of the petition schedule premises belonging to the respondent-landlady on a monthly rent of Rs.800/- per month. The petitioner failed to pay the rent and thus he committed default in payment of rent and further damaged the property by negligent and rough use. Hence, the respondent demanded the petitioner to vacate the petition schedule premises as it is required for the bona fide personal requirement of her personal occupation. But the petitioner did not vacate the property and gave a false reply stating that he spent large amount over the property for its repairs. Hence, the respondent filed R.C.No.38 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The learned Additional Rent Controller, by his order dated 21-09- 2006, allowed the same directing the petitioner to vacate the petition schedule premises within a period of three months from that date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed R.A.No.325 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, contending that he did not commit any default in payment of rent, but the respondent refused to receive the rents demanding enhancement of rent from Rs.300/- to Rs.1000/- per month. The learned Chief Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the requirement of the schedule premises by the petitioner is bona fide and the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and accordingly dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 17-04-2007, confirming the order passed by the trial Court and granted time for eviction for a period of one month from the date of that judgment. The same is challenged in this revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. As seen from the record, it is clear that the petitioner committed default in payment of rent and further in his cross- examination, he himself admitted that the respondent is in the occupation of one Matruka of Waheedunnisa Begum and that the said premises is not sufficient to her for residing along with her two daughters. Further the appellate Court also observed that the requirement of the schedule premises is bona fide. The orders passed by both the courts below do not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, I do not see any merits in this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to vacate the schedule premises and deliver possession of the same to the respondent-landlady within a period of three months from the date of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ October 7, 2010 KVR