This revision is filed under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 being aggrieved by the order passed by the X Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in H.R.C. No. 1340 of 1996.

2. The eviction petition was filed by the landlord before the Trial Court under Section 21(1)(a), (h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 during the year 1996 stating that the tenant is in occupation of the petition premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 300/- and she has become chronic defaulter in paying the rentals and is due in a sum of Rs.1,200/- by the end of June 2006; the family of the landlord consists of three sons and a daughter, out of them two sons are married and the premises in which they are residing is too small to accommodate all the family members and accordingly sought for eviction on the ground of bona fide use and occupation. Further, according to the landlord, the tenant has also occupied an alternative premises in the name of her son nearby the petition premises. The said petition was resisted by the tenant. According to her, there are 7 tenements in the ground floor and 7 tenements in the first floor and all the premises belong to the landlord and the premises in occupation of the other tenants is more suitable and he could have opted for those premises. Further, her contention is that the petition premises was allotted to her husband by the Rent Controller on 3-12-1987 and since she refused to pay the higher rent, the eviction petition is filed. The Trial Court, after enquiry, passed an order of eviction on the ground of requirement and dismissed the claim of the landlord insofar as the arrears of rent and availability of alternative accommodation to the tenant. Having suffered an order of eviction the tenant is before this Court.

3. Heard the Counsel for the respective parties.

4. During the pendency of the matter before this Court, an application under Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act is filed by the respondent-landlord and objection is also filed to the said application by the petitioner-tenant. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that there is no need of the petition premises by the respondent-landlord; he has got other tenements in the same building; he has only chosen to evict the tenant; he has also not examined his landlord where he is residing at present. Further submitted that the tenant cannot be evicted invoking Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and that there is a partition suit pending between the landlord and his brother and in the absence of partition and actual division he is not the landlord, as such, eviction order cannot be passed. Further, he relied upon a ruling of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shoukath v. V. Chandraprakash, to contend that requirement has to be ,'eal requirement.

5. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord has submitted that the landlord is residing in a rented premises elsewhere and he is in need of the petition premises for his bona fide use and occupation since he has got three sons and a daughter and also the original tenancy is in favour of the husband of the tenant, he died in the year 1993 itself and subsequently, it has been continued by his wife and as per the mandate under Section 5 of the Act, the landlord is entitled for eviction on completion of 5 years from the date of death of the original tenant. Accordingly, contended that there is no merit in the revision filed. In support of his argument he relied upon the judgment in the case of Taradevi and Another v. Sakku Bai and Another and also one more judgment in the case of Smt. K.S. Nagamma v. Mrs. M.P. Manekshah, regarding application of Section 5 of the Act.

6. Now, let me consider (i) Whether the Trial Court has committed any error in passing the impugned order? and (ii) Whether the landlord is entitled for possession invoking Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999?

7. Insofar as the pendency of the