JUDGMENT M. M. DAS, J. : As both the above writ petitions involve common question of facts and law and have been preferred against the common judgment passed by the House Rent Controller-cum-J.M.F.C. (II), Bolangir in H.R.C. Case No.4/2 of 1983-86 and the judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolangir in House Rent Appeal No.3 of 1988, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. An application under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was filed by one Md. Yunus, the petitioner in OJC No. 6471 of 1997 who is Opp.Party No. 1 in OJC No.14478 of 1998, as Landlord, for evicting the tenant-M/s Sadhana Ausadhalaya, Calcutta and its Officer-in-charge occupying the disputed shop room and carrying on business on behalf of the said M/s. Sadhana Ausadhalaya from the disputed shop room. The case has run through a bad weather and has a chequered career. The petition under Section 7 of the Act was filed by the Landlord-Md. Yunus for evicting the tenant and its Officer-in-charge from the tenanted premises which con¬stitute a room measuring 7’4" x 7’6" which is a portion of the residential house of the Landlord, situated on Hal Nazul Plot No.50/1862 in Holding No.587 of Bolangir town within the Munici¬pal limits adjoining to the road near the Bus Stand. The grounds mentioned in the said application by the Landlord were wilful default in payment of monthly rent by the tenant, bona fide requirement of the premises by the Landlord and for repairing the said premises which is in a dilapidated condition. 3. All the allegations made by the Landlord were denied in the written statement filed by Opp.Party No.2 in the said appli¬cation who is petitioner No.1 in OJC No.14478 of 1998. The learned House Rent Controller framed issues on the pleadings of the parties. After conclusion of hearing of the case, the learned House Rent Controller by his judgment dated 11.10.1988 allowed the said application filed by the landlord directing the opp.parties-tenants to deliver vacant possession of the disputed premises to the landlord within one month from the date of the said order. Being aggrieved, the opp.parties in the said applica¬tion preferred House Rent Appeal No.3 of 1988 before the appel¬late authority-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolangir. Being aggrieved, the opp.parties in the said applica¬tion preferred House Rent Appeal No.3 of 1988 before the appel¬late authority-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolangir. During pend¬ency of the said appeal, being aggrieved by an order dated 8.7.1996 passed by the appellate Court by which the said authori¬ty rejected an application filed by one Akhil Chandra Sarkar under Order 41, Rule 27 of the C.P.C. for accepting additional evidence by permitting him to be examined as a witness to clarify the documents marked as Exts. M and M/1 which were written in Bengali language, filed OJC No. 10034 of 1996 before this Court. This Court by its order dated 19.9.1996 disposed of the said writ application with a direction that the lower appellate Court shall take into consideration those two documents marked Exts-M and M/1 and if necessary get the same translated by a Bengali knowing person of its choice. It appears from the record that after disposal of the above writ application, the lower appellate Court appointed one Smt. Supriya Banarjee, a Bengali knowing person to submit translated copies of Exts M and M/1 and the same was filed and marked as “X” for identification. After hearing of the ap¬peal, the lower appellate Court by its judgment dated 18.12.1996 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of eviction passed by the House Rent Controller. 4. It is relevant to mention here that after dismissal of the appeal, the said Akhil Chandra Sarkar who was the Officer-in-charge of M/s. Sadhana Ausadhalaya at Bolangir, challenged the judgment of the lower appellate Court in OJC No.1137 of 1997 before, this Court. When the said writ application was taken up on 16.10.1998, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the said Akhil Chandra Sarkar who was originally opp.party No.2 in the House Rent Control Case as well as the proprietor of M/s. Sadhana Ausadhalaya which was the tenant, expired during the pendency of the said proceeding. This Court, therefore, by its order dated 16.10.1998 passed in the said OJC No.1137 of 1997 while holding that it is the admitted case of both the parties that Md. Yunus is the landlord and M/s. Sadhana Ausadhalaya represented by Dr. Naresh Chandra Ghose was the sole tenant observed that there is no scope for wrong description of the petitioner in the cause title of the said writ application. Yunus is the landlord and M/s. Sadhana Ausadhalaya represented by Dr. Naresh Chandra Ghose was the sole tenant observed that there is no scope for wrong description of the petitioner in the cause title of the said writ application. This Court further held that as the right to sue does not survive, there is no scope for any substitution and in the eye of law, the case stands abated. With the further observation that the said order shall not prevent any party to canvas a just cause before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, this Court disposed of the said writ application vacating all interim orders. 5. OJC No.14478 of 1998 has been preferred by the Officer-in-charge of M/s. Sadhana Ausadhalaya and the tenant-M/s. Sadhana Ausadhalaya now stated to be a partnership concern, represented by its partners and a similar amendment has been made in the cause title of OJC No.6471 of 1997 filed by the landlord. 6. Though Mr. A. K. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the landlord in both the writ applications raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of OJC No. 14478 of 1998, in our view, as the said tenanted premises is admittedly still under the occupation of the tenant-M/s. Sadhana Ausadhalaya and its Officer-in-charge, the writ petition cannot be held to be not maintainable. The tenant and its Officer-in-charge have called in question, the judgments passed by the Courts below on the ground that the findings with regard to wilful default in payment of monthly rent and the tenanted premises requires immediate repair are erroneous, illegal and contrary to the materials available on record. 7. Being aggrieved by the findings of the lower appellate Court on the issue of bona fide requirement of the landlord to the effect that there is absolutely no proof of bona fide need of the landlord, the landlord has preferred OJC No. 6471 of 1997. However, the learned lower appellate Court in its concluding paragraphs of the judgment held as follows : “Having regard to the above facts as discussed and the prin¬ciples of the Hon’ble Courts (supra) as relied upon, the respond¬ent/(petitioner of the lower Court) has established a clear case of bona fide requirements, and as such there is cause of action to initiate this case and as such, the case is maintainable. In the result, the impugned order being not unreasonable or perverse calling for interference by this Court, the appeal fails, and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to the costs.” From the above, we find that even though in the body of the judgment, the appellate Court has held that there is absolutely no proof of bona fide need of the landlord as required under the provisions of the Act but, in fact, the lower appellate Court has confirmed the judgment of the House Rent Controller in toto without any modification. Thus, in our view, the finding on the question of bona fide requirement has been confirmed by both the Courts below in favour of the landlord and thus, there is no necessity for quashing the finding of the lower appellate Court that there is absolutely no proof of bona fide need of the land¬lord as required under the provisions of the Act. 8. In O.J.C. No.14478 of 1998 filed by the tenants M/s. Sadhana Aushadhalaya and its Officer-in-charge, they have im¬pugned the orders passed by the House Rent Controller and the appellate authority directing eviction of the writ petitioners from the demised premises. 9. As already observed above, the grounds for eviction as set out by the Opp.Party-Landlord were (i) wilful default, (ii) bona fide requirement and (iii) damage of the premises requiring immediate repairs. The relevant provision of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) under which the application for eviction was filed is Section 7 of the said Act. Necessary portion of Section 7 of the Act is quoted hereunder : “Section 7 :- Conditions under which tenant can be ejected : (1) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. Necessary portion of Section 7 of the Act is quoted hereunder : “Section 7 :- Conditions under which tenant can be ejected : (1) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. (2) If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satis¬fied- (i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due from him in respect of the house within thirty days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of the tenancy with the landlord for payment of rent or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable; or (ii) that the tenant has without the written consent of the landlord- (a) transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire house or any portion thereof (if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so), or (b) used the house for a purpose other than that for which it was let out; or (iii) that the tenant has committed such acts of damages as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the house; or (iv) that the tenant has denied the title of the landlord or claimed a right of permanent tenancy and that such denial or claim is not bona fide; he shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the house and if the Controller is not so satis¬fied, he shall make an order rejecting the application : Provided that in any case falling under Clause (1) if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant’s default to pay or tender rent was not wilful, he may give the tenant a reasonable time not exceeding fifteen days to pay or tender the rent due from him or the landlord up to the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or tender the application shall be rejected. xx xx xx xx (4) The landlord may,subject to the provisions of this Act, apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put him in possession of the house, if he requires the house in good faith for the occupation or use of himself, any member of his family or of any person or persons for whose benefit the house is held by him.” 10. A bare reading of the above provisions discloses that an order of eviction can be passed if it is proved in a case that the tenant has wilfully defaulted in making payment of the rent or has caused damages to the tenanted premises which are likely to materially impair the value or utility of the same or if the tenant has denied the title of the landlord and such claim is not bona fide. The landlord can also apply for eviction of the tenant if he requires the house in good faith for his use or occupation or use and occupation of any of the members of his family. 11. In the instant case, the grounds taken by the landlord are of wilful default in payment of rent, bona fide requirement of the house and also the ground that the tenanted premises is in a dilapidated condition and requires immediate repair/demolition. The relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. We find from the impugned orders that both the forums below have come to the finding on admission of the writ petitioners that rent upto February, 1981 was fixed at Rs. 127/- per month which was in¬creased to Rs. 167/- per month from the month of March, 1981. It has also been found that Ext-M which is an entry in the cash book of the tenant, discloses that a sum of Rs. 208/- has been paid to the landlord for the months of December, 1980 and January, 1981. The entry Ext- M/1 of the said cash book discloses that a sum of Rs. 208/- has been paid for the months of February and March, 1981. Hence, admittedly, a sum of Rs. 46/- was not paid for the months of December, 1980 and January, 1981 and a sum of Rs. 86/- was not paid for the months of February and March, 1981. No explanation whatsoever has been rendered by the writ petitioners as to why the said sums were not paid. 12. Hence, admittedly, a sum of Rs. 46/- was not paid for the months of December, 1980 and January, 1981 and a sum of Rs. 86/- was not paid for the months of February and March, 1981. No explanation whatsoever has been rendered by the writ petitioners as to why the said sums were not paid. 12. It is trite to observe that the words “wilful default” have been interpreted by this Court as well as the Apex Court in several case laws. It is the settled position that once the tenant admits not to have paid or tendered the rent due or the landlord proves that there is rent due which has not been ten¬dered within the time stipulated, the onus lies on the tenant to prove and establish that the default was not wilful. (See Menaka Rani v. Mahindra, ILR 1968 Cuttack 187, Bising Saura & Another v. State of Orissa, IV (1962) OJD 252 and Kailash Ch. Sahoo v. S. M. Manzi, 1972 (I) CWR 884.). 13. In the case at hand, we are unable to find any explana¬tion given by the tenants-writ petitioners for non-payment of admitted rent due for the month of December, 1980 and for the months of January to March, 1981 in full as found by the forums below. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the said finding in both the impugned orders that there was wilful default in payment of monthly rent by the writ petitioners to the land¬lord-Opp.Party, which itself is a ground to entail eviction of the writ petitioners. The House Rent Controller on analyzing the materials brought before him by both the parties has come to a finding of fact that the landlord-Opp.Party has also established the ground of bona fide requirement as per Section 7 of the Act. We find no perversity or illegality in the said finding of act which has been confirmed by the appellate authority, as already discussed above. On that ground also the landlord is entitled to an order of eviction of the writ petitioners from the tenanted premises. In view of our above conclusion, we do not feel it necessary to analyze or examine the other grounds with regard to require¬ment of immediate repair/demolition of the tenanted premises. 14. On that ground also the landlord is entitled to an order of eviction of the writ petitioners from the tenanted premises. In view of our above conclusion, we do not feel it necessary to analyze or examine the other grounds with regard to require¬ment of immediate repair/demolition of the tenanted premises. 14. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the materials available on record, we are of the view that there is absolutely no reason to inter¬fere with the orders impugned in these writ applications. Hence, for the reasons stated in paragraph-7 above, no order is required to be passed in OJC No.6471 of 1997 filed by the landlord and the said writ petition is disposed of and O.J.C. No. 14478 of 1998 filed by the tenant is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. S. B. ROY, C.J. I agree. One petition disposed of and another dismissed.