Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was carried to the Appellate Authority, namely, Principal Senior Civil Judge cum Appellate Authority, Vijayawada.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of the High Court, this Special Leave Petition has been filed at the instance of the tenant appellant, which on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
In Paragraph 16 of the impugned Judgment, the High Court has given the reasons for setting aside the companycurrent orders of rejection of the eviction petition.
The only ground on which the High Court had set aside the companycurrent orders of the Courts below is that since the husband of the landlady had retired from service in 1982 and was residing at Hyderabad and she was number having any other residential house at Vijayawada where she was planning to settle, it must be held that the requirement was bonafide.
In or about the year 2000, the landlady respondent herein filed an application for eviction of the tenant appellant under Section 10 3 a i a read with Section 10 2 i of A.P. Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960 in short, the Act before the Rent Controller on the ground that the landlady respondent bonafide required the premises in question and also the tenant appellant was a willful defaulter in payment of rent.
The Appellate Authority also affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller, Vijayawada and dismissed the appeal.
A Civil Revision Petition was then filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by the landlady respondent against the aforesaid companycurrent orders of rejection of the eviction petition and by the impugned order, the High Court had set aside the companycurrent orders of rejection and directed the eviction of the tenant appellant.
Parties adduced evidence and finally, the Rent Controller, Vijayawada, by its final order dated 31st of October, 2001, rejected the eviction petition inter alia holding that the landlady respondent had failed to prove that the tenant appellant was a defaulter in payment of rent and in so far as the bonafide need of the premises in question was companycerned, it was held that the landlady respondent had two houses at Hyderabad and the landlady was residing in Vijayawada with her family members companysisting of one son and two daughters for the last 31 years.
The appellant is a tenant in respect of the premises in question since 1982.
