This is a tenant’s revision petition filed under section 115 of C.P.C challenging order of Revisional court dated 09.09.2014 passed in HRC RR 22/2012 whereunder revision petition filed by petitioner herein under section 46(2) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came to be dismissed and order of eviction passed by Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Sagar dated 12.10.2012 in HRC.6/2011 allowing the petition filed under section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came to be affirmed.

2. I have heard the arguments of Sri.H.S.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for petitioner. Perused the orders in question. Parties are referred to as per their rank in trial court.

3. Petitioner sought for eviction of respondent from the petition schedule premises under section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 contending interalia that respondent is a tenant on a monthly rent of `900/and he is running a cassette shop in the petition schedule premises and he is a chronic defaulter in payment of rents. Notice issued by landlord on 01.06.2012 calling upon respondenttenant to pay arrears of rent of `69,300/has been returned by postal authorities as “unclaimed” and even thereafter tenant has not paid rents. It was also contended that petitioner is a Goldsmith by profession and he is carrying on his work in his residential premises and intends to commence business on a larger scale in the petition schedule premises to earn more and lead a happy and comfortable life and as such he require the petition schedule premises. On this ground he prayed for petition being allowed. On service of summons, respondent appeared and filed his statement of objections denying the averments made in the eviction petition. He admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant and denied that he was in arrears of rent. He also contended that at the time of inception of lease he had paid a sum of `90,000/as earnest money to landlord. All other averments made in the eviction petition came to be denied. Before trial court petitioner got himself examined as PW1 and in all produced six documents and got it marked as Exhibits P1 to P6. Respondent stepped into witness box and he got marked two documents as Exhibits D1 and D2. Learned trial Judge after hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties formulated following points for its determination.

“1. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent is in arrears of rent from 06.12.2004 and thereby liable to be evicted under section 27(2)(a) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999?

2. Whether the petitioner proves that the petition schedule property is required to expand his business, thereby the respondent is liable to be evicted under section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999?

3. What order?”

4. After considering the pleadings, evaluation of evidence tendered by parties, trial Judge has come to a conclusion that petitioner has failed to prove the point relating to arrears of rent and as such dismissed the eviction petition filed under section 27(2)(a) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. However accepting plea of bonafide requirement, petition filed under section 27(2)(r) came to be allowed by order dated 12.10.2012.

5. Being aggrieved by this order a revision was filed under section 46(2) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 before Fast Track Court, Sagar in HRC RR 22/2012. After considering the rival contentions raised by learned advocates appearing for the parties revisional court formulated following points for its consideration:

“1. Whether the revision petitioner shows sufficient reasons to interfere with the order passed by the trial court?

2. Whether the revision petitioner proves that the order of the trial court is illegal for capricious and against the provision of law?

3. What order?”

6. After analysing arguments advanced by respective learned advocates revisional court affirmed the order passed by trial court and dismissed the revision petition. Revisional Court has also taken into consideration all aspects including