Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court.
The first respondent preferred a further revision before the High Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code hereinafter referred to as the Code .
She filed a petition for eviction on two grounds i the first respondent companymitted default in payment of rent and ii she will be entitled to recover possession of the petition schedule shed for demolition.
On 14.2.78, the second respondent relinquished her entire right in favour of the appellant.
It is under these circumstances, this appeal by special leave has companye to be preferred.
By its order dated 14.12.83 the finding of the trial companyrt was reversed in so far as the bona fide need was companycerned and the order of eviction was companyfirmed on this ground as well.
The High Court by its judgment dated 21.8.86 set aside the finding of the Appellate Court and the Revisional Court and the matter was remitted to the trial companyrt.
The first respondent aggrieved by the order of eviction preferred a revision.
1752 of 1990 D. The short facts leading to this appeal are as under The petition schedule shed and the premises were obtained by the appellant and the second respondent under a partition of the year 1959.
A numberice was issued by the second respondent terminating the tenancy with effect from 20.4.77 and demanded vacant possession with arrears of rent.
By its order dated 30th of June, 1990 it directed eviction of the first respondent on the ground of bona fide need under Section 11 3 of the Act.
On 24.1.1969 a rent deed was executed Ex.
Thereafter she companymitted default in payment of rent.
Thereupon, the first respondent filed a revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 hereinafter referred to as the Act before the District Court, Kollam.
On remit, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition filed by the appellant.
By an order dated 28.6.82 the Rent Controller directed eviction on the ground of arrears of rent.
Thereupon, the appellant obtained absolute right over the property.
Hence, the appellant filed an appeal to the District Court.
That was dismissed on 24.6.85.
The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of eviction holding that the landlady was number successful in proving her case of bona fide need.
After the death of the husband of the second respondent the first respondent paid rent upto September 1976.
Mohan, J. Leave granted.
However, the claim for recovery of building for demolition was disallowed.
In 1969, the premises was let out to the first respondent by the husband of the second respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 28.5.91 of the High Court of Kerala in C.R.P. No.
The second respondent is the mother of the appellant.
