1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2094/2010 Laxmi Chand Vs. Kanti Chand and Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 23.7.2010 HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Dr. Pushpendra Singh, for the petitioner. Against the petitioner, an application was filed by the respondent for recovery of the rent and eviction from the rented premises, on the ground of default and bonafide necessity. Both the issues were decided in favour of the applicant-respondent, thus, under the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2007, the applicant-respondent was declared entitled for getting the premises vacant within a period of six months and further to receive the rent due in a tune of Rs.9,600/-. An appeal preferred by the petitioner tenant to challenge the judgment and decree aforesaid also came to be rejected on 24.8.2009. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree referred above, this petition for writ is preferred. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court erred while holding that the petitioner tenant committed default by not depositing due rent. As per counsel for 2 the petitioner, the issue regarding bonafide necessity too was erroneously decided in favour of the landlord on the count that an alternative premises available was rented out by the landlord to some other person. I have examined the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal as well as by the Appellate Tribunal. So far as, issue regarding default is concerned, it is pertinent to note here that a notice was given by the tenant providing his bank account numbers and other necessary details and despite of it tenant failed to make payment of the rent. True it is, there was some dispute regarding quantum of rent but the petitioner did not choose to deposit the rent which as per him was settled. On non-payment of the rent in present set of facts is nothing but default as held by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. The issue with regard to bonafide necessity has been thoroughly considered by the trial court and pure a finding of fact is given, which is affirmed by the appellate court. Such finding is not required to be disturbed by this Court, while exercising power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this petition for writ is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. RM/