The reasonableness of the landlord's requirement for eviction under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, should be determined objectively, considering the normal amenities provided in the relevant business.

( 1 ) THESE revision petitions are filed by the owner of the three premises in question against the rejection of his claim for evicting the tenants. All the three premises are non-residential and are part of a bigger property belonging to the petitioner. C. R. P. 1946/88 arises out of the proceeding in H. R. C. 2038/82. The subject-matter of the proceedings may be referred as premises No. 136. C. R. P. 1947/88 arises out of H. R. C. 2039/82 and its subject-matter is premises No. 134. C. R. P. 1948/88 arises out of H. R. C. 2036/82 and its subject-matter is premises No. 133. In premises No. 133 the tenant was carrying on the tailoring business. In premises No. 134 the business that is being carried on pertains to photo frames and in premises No. 136 the tenant has been carrying on the business of auto works i. e. , repairing the scooters, etc. These premises are adjacent to premises Nos. 130 and 131. The petitioner along with members of his family is carrying on the business of running a lodging house in the name of Sri Kamal Hotel in the said premises Nos. 130 and 131. However, the lodging house has no direct road approach from the main road called Cubbonpet Main road. These schedule premises (Nos. 133, 134 and 136) as well as another premises No. 135 face the Cubbonpet main road. In premises No. 135 there was a tenant running a business in the name of Bitco Sales Service. The petitioner filed an eviction petition against the said tenant also and the tenant agreed to vacate and thereafter the petitioner obtained possession of the same.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner there are about 33 rooms in the lodging house. There is no restaurant in the compound. The petitioner proposes to open a restaurant and accordingly obtained possession of premises No. 132 on the first floor. There is no direct access to the said premises from the road and in the evidence the landlord as P. W. 1 has asserted that he intends to put up steps or staircase to the said first floor by the side of premises No. 136.

( 3 ) IN the eviction petition filed the petitioner stated that Sri Kamal Hotel started functioning on and from 3-12-1981. However, the lodgers are deprived of various amenities; there is no place for parking of vehicles and the present accommodation available for the purpose of Reception of the lodgers is hardly sufficient and there is also no restaurant and boarding to meet the compelling requirements of the lodgers. The premises are situated in a commercial locality and there is rush of lodgers to this hotel and the hotel finds it difficult to provide the necessary amenities stated earlier for want of accommodation. The petitioner further stated that he will make necessary alterations after securing possession of the premises to provide amenities of restaurant, boarding, reception and parking of vehicles. The eviction petitions were filed in July 1982. The requirements were further clarified by pointing out that premises Nos. 133 and 134 were required for the purpose of providing reception room for the hotel and these two premises were adjacent to each other and that there was no other proper accommodation for a reception room. The petitioner further clarified that premises No. 135 was obtained by him as per the order made in HRC. 2035/82 but he could not utilise the same for parking vehicles because the said premises No. 135 will have to be utilised along with premises No. 136 for the same purpose after removing the eastern wall of premises No. 135. The petitioner also stated that he has been keeping premises No. 135 vacant with the a sole purpose of making use of it for the parking space after he gets vacant possession of premises No. 136. The petitioner also stated that immediately after starting of the lodging house, all these tenants were intimated of the requirement, but they have not agreed to vacate the premises.

( 4 ) IN addition to this plea the petitioner also claimed eviction of the tenant of the premises No. 134