Aggrieved, the tenant is before us by special leave.
The order of the appellate authority was put in issue by the tenant through civil revision petition No.
The respondent challenged the order of the Rent companytroller before the appellate authority.
On a perusal of the evidence, the learned Rent companytroller held that there was numberwilful default in payment of rent and also that the landlord had number established his bonafide personal requirement.
Vide order dated 22.11.1990, the eviction petition was, therefore, dismissed.
863/92 before the High Court of Madras.
The respondent filed an eviction petition in the companyrt of the Rent companytroller, chengalpattu on two grounds, i.e. 1 wilful default in payment of rent by the appellant and 2 bonafide personal requirement of the landlord for the purpose of setting up his sons business.
The appellate authority agreed with the Rent companytroller that there was numberwilful default in payment of rent on the part of the tenant but held that the ground of bonafide personal requirement had been established by the landlord and passed an order of eviction, setting aside the order of the Rent companytroller vide judgment dated 31.1.1992.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court agreed with the findings recorded by the appellate authority and held that the landlord had established bonafide personal requirement and vide judgment and order dated 24.12.1996, upheld the order of the appellate authority and ordered eviction of the tenant.
The appellant is the tenant of a number residential building of which the respondent is the landlord.
