N. Kumar, J.

1. This revision petition is filed by the tenant against the concurrent finding recorded lay the Courts below that the landlady has established her requirement to occupy the schedule premises and therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the trial Court.

3. One Sri Sunthankar and brothers were owners of western half portion of CTS No. 3470 situate at Samadevi Galli, Belgaum in Karnataka. The petitioner purchased the said property under two registered sale deeds dated 11-9-1987 and 19-9-1987. Out of the said property, the premises roughly measuring 30' x 13' consisting of three rooms is in the occupation of the respondent as a tenant which is the subject matter of these proceedings and for short herein referred to as the “schedule property”, In paragraph-1 of the eviction petition, the schedule property is clearly setout and a hand sketch is also prepared and referred to in paragraph-2 arid enclosed to the eviction petition showing the location of the schedule properly.

4. The petitioner filed an eviction petition under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for eviction of the respondent-tenant. The said eviction petition is filed through her Bower of Attorney Holder and husband Sri. Balchandra Tubachi, who has signed the eviction petition, verified, the same and also filed an affidavit swearing to the contents of the eviction petition. The case of the petitioner in that the respondent is not regular in making monthly payment of rent of Rs. 100/-. He has not paid rents from 1-10-1987 till the date of the petition. He is in arrears of rent for a period more than 14 years. Therefore, she got issued a legal notice dated 3-2-2004 claiming arrears of rent only for a period of three years from 1-2-2002 to 31-1-2004 amounting to Rs. 3,600/-. The said notice was duly served. He did not send any reply. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the eviction petition. It is contended that the schedule property was purchased for her self occupation and for the benefit of her entire family. She is staying in a rented premises at Plot No. 21, Near Amrut Pharma, Pipe Line Road, Vrjayanagar., Belgaum on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/-. Except the schedule property she do not own any other premises either by herself or in the name of her husband within Belgaum Taluk. She has no other reasonable and suitable premises in Belgaum. Her son by name Suraja has already completed Diploma in Pharmacy in the year 2002, the schedule property is located in the heart of the city and in a commercial area, she intends to open a retail medical shop for the avocation of her son. Her husband is carrying on wholesale pharmaceutical dealership business under the name and style of M/s. Tubachi Medicals. Therefore, she contended that she needs the schedule property for her self-occupation.

5. The respondent after service of nonce entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objections, He contended that the description of the schedule property is not proper, boundaries are also not correct, the sketch produced has no legal sanctity and is not an authenticated document. He denied the purchase of the schedule property by the petitioner, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, denied the rate of rent. He averred that the Corporation demolished a portion measuring 8 ft. in length in his occupation and therefore, he had no option but to get it repaired. In that context, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 402/1997 to harass the respondent He denied that he is in arrears of rent. He denied the title of the petitioner to the schedule properly. He setup a plea of adverse possess ion. He contended that he is in possession of the schedule property from the year 1975 till today without any obstructions, hurdles and disturbances from anybody. Therefore, he