( 1 ) THIS house rent revision petition under Section 46 (1) of the karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7-11-2002 passed in H. R. C. No. 10237 of 1995 on the file of the court of the V Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall Unit (SCCH20), Bangalore.

( 2 ) UNDER the impugned order, the Court below has allowed the petition of the petitioners/joint owners/landlords therein which had been filed under Section 21 (l) (h), (i) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control act, 1961 and the petition having been allowed under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('the Act' for short), which has replaced the erstwhile Act during the pendency of the petition and the respondent-tenants having been directed to vacate and hand over possession of the petition schedule premises within sixty days from the date of the order, the aggrieved tenants are in revision before this Court.

( 3 ) THE eviction petitioners claiming to be the joint owners of the premises in question filed a petition under the provisions noted above, one amongst which is bona fide requirement of the premises for the occupation of the owners. The petitioners claim that they have inherited the property under a Will executed by their grandfather late Krishnamurthy naidu and that subsequent to the death of the grandfather, they have also exercised the ownership right in respect of the very premises and as against the respondent-tenants by collecting the rents and as they required the premises for their own use and occupation, they sought for eviction of the tenants.

( 4 ) THE petition was resisted by the respondents who are brothers. It appears, initially one brother had been impleaded as a respondent and later on that respondent having taken up a contention that the other brother is a tenant and not himself, the other brother was also impleaded as a party respondent to the eviction petition. The respondent also contested the petition disputing the relationship of "landlord" and "tenant"; that the petitioners do not require the premises for bona fide use and occupation; that the schedule premises is not one which is required to be demolished and rebuilt; that the petitioners do not have the requisite funds for demolition and reconstruction and that the tenants do not have any other alternative premises to reside if they are evicted from the petition schedule premises and as such the petition was to be dismissed. It was also sought to be pleaded that the petitioners themselves were in occupation of other suitable accommodation and as such they do not need the premises for bona fide use and occupation.

( 5 ) THE petitioners' evidence was that of the power of attorney holder who was examined as P. W. 1, one by name K Raghunath; that the power of attorney holder is the son of the first petitioner-Smt. K sharadamma; that the petitioners have also produced documentary evidence, exs. P. 1 to P. 9 including the death certificate of the erstwhile owner late Krishnamurthy Naidu, certain documents relating to property where they had earlier resided and a certified copy of the Will said to have been executed by the erstwhile owner Krishnamurthy Naidu. On behalf of the respondents, documents such as rent receipts and certain other documents indicative of the manner of payment of rents by the two brothers, are produced. The petitioners had also pleaded that under the will left behind by the grandfather, the property in question was to be enjoyed by his sister during her lifetime and it is only thereafter it would pass on to the petitioners absolutely. It is subsequent to the death of Smt. Lakshmidevamma, the sister of the said testator Krishnamurthy naidu that the petitioners have taken steps for filing the eviction petition.

( 6 ) IN the light of the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence let in, in support of their case, the Trial Court formulated the following points for its determination. " (1) Whether the pe