The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of substantial evidence to support grounds for eviction under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, particularly in cases of nuisance and reasonable and bona fide requirement.

( 1 ) THESE Revision Petitions are filed by Mrs. Celine Mary, the landlady (Petitioner in HRRP No. 1704/94) and Mrs. Alice Naidu, the tenant-petitioner (in HRRP No. 11/95) challenging the order dated 5. 8. 94 passed by the Rent Control Judge in HRC No. 10494/90.

( 2 ) I would be referring to the parties as per their rankings be fore the Trial Court.

( 3 ) THE landlady Celine Mary filed a petition seeking for eviction under Section 21 (1) (d) and (h) of the KRC Act (Act for short ). The trial Judge allowed the petition in so for as eviction under Section 21 (1) (d) is concerned and dismissed the petition in so for as Section 21 (1) (h) is concened. The finding on Section 21 (1) (h) is challenged by the landlady in HRRP No. 1704/94 and the finding relating to section 21 (1) (d) is challenged by the tenant on the following facts.

( 4 ) THE landlady filed a petition under Section 21 (1) (d) and (h) of the Act in HRC No. 10494/90. It is stated in the petition that the respondent is a tenant residing in the first floor portion of the building bearing no. 101, 7th cross, Williams Town Extension, Bangalore, on a monthly rental of Rs. 100/ -. The said premises was allotted to the tenant by Rent and Accommodation Controller, Bangalore, on 30. 9. 80. Husband of the tenant deserted her as he got frustrated with her attrocities and her immoral way of living. After the husband of the tenant left her she continued to live in the schedule premises with her son aged 15 years. She is employed in Airforce, HAL, bangalore. She has been creating nuisance to heighbouring fenants in the locality and also to the tenant residing at ground floor portion. Aggrieved by her nuisance complaint have been lodged, at the jurisdictional police station by the landlady and the other neighboring tenants of the locality. A joint complaint has also been forwarded to the police Commissioner for action. Copies of these complaints are filed with the petition. With these grounds eviction was sought under section 21 (1) (d) of the Act.

( 5 ) THE landlady also sought for eviction under Section 2 (1) (h) of the Act by contending that she requires premises for her bonafide use and occupation. Her family consists of herself her husband Sri lourduswamy and four children viz. , Noel Narina, Paul Raj, Rufina sophia, and Maray Kala. Her first daughter is married to Jon Edward in 1987 and he is working in Indian Overeas Bank, Thiruvanamal branch, Tamilnadu. This daughter has given birth to a child aged 9 months now, and daughter is employed in AG's office, Bangalore. The family of the daughter is presently accommodated in 3/6,. Mosque road cross, Bangalore 5, the son of the landlady aged 29 years is a air conditioning Engineer, and yet not married since their is paucity of accommodation. Landlady's second daughter is aged 22 years, and is of a marriageable age. Last daughter of the petitioner is studying in Dayanand Sagar college, in Electronic Engineering II year and she has no proper place for study. The present accommodation is highly insufficient for them and therefore sought for eviction of the premises by the tenant. The said claim of the landlady was contested by the tenant. Tenant alleged that the petition is filed with a sinister motives and to seek vengence against her at the instance of a tenant residing at ground floor one Mr. Robin chandra Kumar. Sri Robin Chandra Kumar is not in good terms with her. He has quarrelled with her with regard to sharing of water in the premises. According to her she would be put to greater hardship if eviction is ordered.

( 6 ) WITH these pleadings parties went for a trial before the Court. On be half of the petitioner 4 witnesses have been examined in addition to filing of 24 documents. Tenant examined one witness and filed no documents. The trial Judge framed as many as 5 issues for consideration. He answered the first 2 issues in affirmative. 3rd point is answered in negative. First point is with regard to relationship