( 1 ) THE petitioner is the landlord. He has filed this revision petition against the order dated 18-11-1999 passed by the Trial Court dismissing his eviction petition filed under Section 21 (l) (h) of the Karnataka Rent control Act, 1961.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed petition seeking eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule premises on the ground that he requires the same for self-occupation of his family members. The petitioner claimed that he is the owner of the schedule property by virtue of the Will dated 29-9-1993 executed by. the landlady, deceased Boramma. The respondent vehemently resisted the petition taking several contentions including denial of relationship of landlord and tenant. Parties adduced evidence and produced documents in support of their respective case. Upon appreciation of the material evidence placed on record, the Trial Court held that the petitioner has no right to maintain the eviction petition; that he has not proved the Will and that he has not established the fact that he is the landlord of the petition schedule premises. Consequently, the eviction petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same the present revision petition is filed.

( 3 ) IT is an undisputed fact that Smt. Boramma was the landlady and respondent was the tenant under her. The plea of the petitioner is that the said Boramma executed Will in which the petition schedule property had been bequeathed in his favour. The respondent-tenant denied the same. P. W. 2 is the brother of Boramma. He has spoken to the execution of the Will. He is also a beneficiary under the Will apart from the petitioner in respect of other property of the testator. In addition to P. W. 2, the petitioner also examined P. W. 3 to prove the Will. The Trial Court disbelieved the execution of Will merely on certain minor discrepancies in the evidence. The Trial Court was not justified in not accepting the evidence on record in answer to the contentious point that was framed by it. After the death of landlady, it is not in dispute that petitioner was collecting the rents from the respondent. As per the definition under section 2 (h) of the Kamataka Rent Control Act, he is the landlord. The respondent has not stated who is his landlord after the death of original landlady. Except the petitioner, no other person came forward claiming that he is the landlord of the petition premises. The Trial Court rightly held that the tenant cannot question the title of the landlord. The same is in accordance with the law laid down in Thimmappa v Kousalya. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court should have accepted the plea of the petitioner that he succeeded to the petition schedule premises. The finding of the Trial Court is contrary to the documentary evidence placed on record. Therefore, the order under revision is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

( 4 ) AS the finding of the Trial Court is not correct, it has to be held that the petitioner is the landlord and respondent is the tenant of the petition schedule premises. It follows that the stand of the respondent that there is no jural relationship between the parties, deserves rejection and accordingly it is rejected.

( 5 ) COMING to the finding recorded by the Trial Court with regard to the requirement of petition schedule premises by the petitioner for himself and his family members bona fide use and occupation, the issue to be resolved by the Trial Court was whether the requirement pleaded by the petitioner is genuine or not. Instead of considering the claim of bona fide requirement pleaded, the Trial Court gone on discussing the factors which are not germane to the issue and consequently held that the requirement is not proved. In paragraph 7 of the eviction petition the petitioner has clearly pleaded his and family members bona fide use and requirement of the premises. Without taking into consideration of the same, the Trial Court has erroneously dismissed the eviction petition. The e