(1) THIS appeal has been preferred by the tenant against his landlord who is the respondent before us. The respondent filed an eviction petition on three grounds: (i) wilful default in payment of rent, (ii) unlawful sub-letting and (iii) that the premises were required for demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction upholding all the three grounds. On appeal the learned Chief Judge of the court of Small Causes held that the grounds of unlawful sub-letting and requirement of premises for demolition and reconstruction were unsustainable but upheld the decree for eviction on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. Both the landlord and the tenant preferred revision applications to the High court against this decision, which were dismissed. It may be mentioned that the revision petition of the landlord was directed against the findings of the learned Chief Judge on the question of sub-letting and the requirement of premises for demolition and reconstruction. The landlord has not preferred a special leave petition against the decision of the High court in the revision peti- tion preferred by him. The appeal before us is at the instance of the tenant and pertains to the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent which was upheld against the tenant. (2) THE High court has not given any reasons and merely dismissed the revision petition of the tenants on the ground that the findings recorded by the courts below are findings of the fact and do not call for interference. After hearing counsel we are satisfied that this was not a case which the High court should have disposed of by a summary order of this kind but it should have given some reasons for upholding the con- clusions of the courts below that the tenant was in wilful default in respect of the payment of rent, particularly in view of the conduct of the parties as shown by the conduct of the parties and referred to in the judg- ment of the courts below. In view of this we set aside the judgment and order passed by the High court and remand the matter to the High Court for a fresh disposal giving reasons for its conclusions. In view of this we set aside the judgment and order passed by the High court and remand the matter to the High Court for a fresh disposal giving reasons for its conclusions. (3) IT was submitted by Mr Sampat, the learned counsel for the landlord that since the matter is being remanded it should be open to his client also to challenge the findings of the learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes court so far as they related to the unlawful sub-letting and requirement of the premises for demolition and reconstruction. Mr Sub- ba Rao has no objection to this. We, therefore, direct that it will be open to the High court to consider these findings also within the scope of its powers. By consent the decision in C.R.P. No. 1669 of 1986 being the revision petition preferred by the tenant is set aside and that revision petition is also remanded to the High court for consideration. The High Court is requested that as far as possible the revision petitions may be disposed of within a period of six months. Let a copy of this order be sent to the High court expeditiously. No order as to costs.