JUDGMENT :

G.K. Mitter, J.

This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the Mysore High Court on a Revision Petition filed under Section 50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961.

2. The facts are as follows. The respondent before us was the landlord (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) of the appellant and had filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement. He was a partner of Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging situate close to the premises in which the appellant was a tenant. He appears to have been carrying on a flourishing business as a hotelier. Formerly there were two businesses which were separated in 1962. According to the petitioner the hotel building though constructed recently had no space which could be used as a godown and the materials required to be stored for the purpose of running the hotel were being kept in the godown of Bombay Chandra Bhawan, Avenue Road. The appellant has been carrying on business in this premises for over twenty years. It was in possession of the entire building but in terms of a compromise it gave up the first and second floors of the building which are now in the possession of the landlord. There was evidence to the effect that these two floors were being used by the landlord for purposes of the hotel. There was further evidence that one room which had been vacated some six months before the present ejectment proceedings by a tin smith was being utilised as an additional kitchen. The portion in possession of the appellant measured approximately 60' x 17'. The learned Munsif who heard the petition in the first instance was unable to hold that the petitioner bonafide required the space occupied by the tenant and he dismissed the petition. On appeal, the District Judge was not satisfied that the petitioner had placed sufficient material before the court to satisfy that the premises which were already in his occupation was not sufficient for him to serve as a godown. He however observed that :

"When the landlord wants to occupy a part of his own building....... there is nothing intrinstrically mala fide about it. But it is not enough if the bonafides are proved. The petitioner must further prove the reasonable requirement..........."

On the evidence he held that the landlord had failed to satisfy the court that he reasonably required the premises. In the result he dismissed the appeal.

3. Section 50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') gives the High Court power to call for and examine the records relating to any decision given or proceedings taken by the District Judge for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or correctness of such decision, order or proceeding and it further empowers the High Court to pass such order as it thinks fit. The learned Judge of the High Court examined the evidence and differing from the finding of the District Judge came to the conclusion that the landlord had proved that he reasonably required the premises for his own use and occupation. The High Court held that the burden of proving that eviction would cause greater hardship on the tenant lay on him and took the view that he had not discharged that burden. Counsel for the appellant contended first that it was not open to the High Court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction to differ from the concurrent views of the two lower courts and, secondly, it had wrongly placed the burden of proof of greater hardship on the tenant and this vitiated its ultimate conclusion. As the revisionary powers are couched in very wide terms we are not inclined to accept the first contention. To appreciate the second point urged, it is necessary to note the provisions of the Act which are as follows :-

"21(1). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or other authority in fav