The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the phrase 'Non-residential Building' in Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, emphasizing the importance of the nature of construction and adaptability for residential purposes in determining the character of the building.

H. Rangavittalachar, J.—This is a tenants revision petition against the order of eviction passed against him by the Judge of the Additional Small Causes, Bangalore in HRC No. 1787 of 1993.

2. Respondent to this revision petition is the owner of the petition premises hereinafter referred to as the LANDLORD; for clarity; He filed an eviction petition against the revision Petitioner (Hereinafter called as TENANTS) in respect of a residential premises bearing No. 50, 11th Main Road, Lakkasandra Extension, Bangalore which consists of a RCC house having 2 bed rooms, hall, kitchen, bathroom, toilet etc., in occupation of the tenants who are presently paying monthly rent of Rs. 950/-; It was contended in the eviction petition that the premises originally belonged to one Narayanaswamy - the father-in-law of the 'landlord'. During his lifetime, the Bangalore Rent and Accommodation Controller allotted the schedule premises on an application made by the revision Petitioner No. 1 i.e., the Lakhanpal National Limited Company for its use on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-; The said Narayanaswamy by his last will bequeathed the schedule premises in favour of the Petitioner. After the death of Narayanaswamy, the revision Petitioners attorned the tenancy in favour of the Respondent.

3. That the 'landlord' has a family of four persons i.e., his wife and two children and at present is residing in a rented house consisting of a meagre accommodation of only a hall and a kitchen. Accommodation available to them is insufficient, besides he also intends to shift to his own house. Hence the premises is required reasonably and bonafide for the landlord's own use and accommodation. Tenants are therefore liable to be evicted under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as THE ACT for short).

4. Eviction petition was contested by the tenants by filing a detailed statement of objections. It was contended by them, that the premises was allotted for the office of the company i.e., for non-residential purposes with the prior permission of the Rent and Accommodation Controller under Section 11 of the Act. Landlord therefore cannot ask for residential accommodation. Besides, in view of the son of Narayanaswamy - the executor of the will, having filed a suit for partition, Eviction Petitioner/landlord cannot claim title to the property as the title is under dispute. Tenant also denied the requirement of the landlord for occupation as neither reasonable nor bonafide.

5. Learned trial Judge has allowed the eviction petition, rejecting the defence. He has held that part of the premises allotted to the tenant is being used by the tenant for residential purposes, for the benefit of the 2nd revision Petitioner, the manager of the Company and there is no prohibition under the provisions of the Act, for a landlord to seek premises though, being used for non-residential purposes, for his residence.

6. On the question of requirement of the landlord for self occupation, trial Judge has held that the evidence led by the landlord, clearly proves that he is residing in an insufficient rented accommodation, in as much as, landlord has two school going children and the accommodation available is only a hall and a kitchen without even a single bedroom. Therefore, the desire to shift to his own house is reasonable and bonafide.

7. On the question of hardship, learned trial Judge has held that the tenants have adduced evidence, stating that they have been making attempts to secure alternative accommodation and having regard to their capacity, it is not difficult for them to secure alternative accommodation. Per contra, if eviction is refused, landlord will suffer greater hardship for want of accommodation.

8. Learned trial Judge has ruled out the feasibility of partial eviction on the ground that the premises cannot accommodate both the family of landlord and the Office of the Company, and the residence of the Manager.

9. This order as stated is under