Though this matter was posted for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it was heard finally.

2. This revision petition is filed by the tenant challenging the order dated 21.7.2008 passed in HRC.No. 10106/2007 on the file of the XV Addl. Small Causes Judge (Mayo Hall Unit), Bangalore. The respondents herein are the landlords.

3. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the trial court.

4. The landlords who are the petitioners before the trial court filed a petition under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act. 1999 (“Rent Act, 1999”) seeking eviction of the tenant in respect of the schedule premises comprising of a shop situated in the ground floor of a shopping complex at Avenue Road, Bangalore. According to the petitioners, they are the absolute owners of the petition schedule premises bearing No. 145 called Ranganatha Mansion at Avenue Road, Bangalore and petitioner No.1 is an association of persons and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the members of the first petitioner. The respondent is a tenant in respect of the portion of the premises separately numbered as 13 on a monthly rent of Rs.2,200/-apart from other charges. The tenancy is as per English calendar month. A notice dated 14.6.2007 was sent by the petitioners to the respondent and in her reply dated 21.6.2007 she admitted her relationship with the petitioners as a tenant. Since the 3rd petitioner namely V.R. Sathyanarayana is a businessman having sufficient business in gold and silver articles and the petition schedule premises is suitable for commencing his business in the said premises and he has sufficient capital for the commencement of his intended business, eviction was sought under Section 27(2)(r) of the said Act.

5. According to the petitioners, they do not have any other accommodation in their possession to accommodate V.R. Satyanarayana, the third petitioner, for starting his business. That the husband of the respondent, Sri. P.A. Mahesh Kumar, was the tenant of the schedule premises till his death on 24.4.2007 and on his death and by virtue of the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the respondent has become a tenant of the schedule premises which has been admitted by her. That the respondent is a chronic defaulter in the payment of rents, but the rents up to 1.7.2007 have been paid. According to the petitioners though the respondent was assured of possession for one year from the date of death of P.A. Mahesh Kumar as his legal representative, a demand notice was sent to her on 14.6.2007 and after receiving a reply, a rejoinder was sent on 28.6.2007 asking her to vacate the premises but since she did not do so, the petition for eviction was filed under Section 27(2)(r) of the Rent Act, 1999.

6. After receipt of notice from the trial court, the respondent appeared and filed her statement of objections contending interalia that the petition was not maintainable in as much as it was premature, in view of Section 5 of the Rent Act, 1999 and the same was liable to be dismissed in limine. While traversing various averments made in the eviction petition, respondent contended that after the death of her husband, she had inherited tenancy of her husband and was entitled to be in possession of the schedule premises in view of the provisions of Section 5 of the Rent Act, 1999. She also submitted that the petition schedule premises was not required by petitioner No.3 and also there were other premises in the commercial complex where the petitioner could make use of in the event of the requirement being genuine. She also denied that she was a chronic defaulter in the payment of rents and stated that she had paid the rents up to 31.12.2007 which was up to date. She also denied she was entitled to inherit tenancy only for one year after the death of her husband, but on the other hand she contended that she was entitled to continue for five years and therefore, sought dismissed of t