( 1 ) THIS is a landlord's revision petition under S. 50 of the Mysore Rent control Act, 1961, against the order of the I Addl. District Judge, Bangalore in HRCA No. 129/1971, affirming the order of the Principal Munsiff, civil Station, Bangalore, in HRC No. 194/1969. The petitioner who is the landlord of the suit premises situate at Bangalore, filed an application for eviction against the respondents-tenants under S. 21 (1) (a)and (h) of the Act, in the Court of first instance. The ground made under S. 21 (1) (a) was not pressed. The case of the landlord is that her husband is working as an Accounts Officer in the Tobacco Co. at Madras; that he is due to retire somewhere in the year 1973; that he proposes to settle down in bangalore; and educate their children. Her further case is that her eldest daughter is a crippled child and not in a position to attend herself. Tne respondents resisted the application inter alia contending that the claim of the petitioner was neither reasonable nor bona fide and this is a ruse to extract higher rent,. Tne Court of first instance after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord is not bonafide. Accordingly the application was dismissed. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Hence this revision petition. ( 2 ) IT was urged by Sri Janardhana, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned District Judge committed an error in holding that the requirement of the landlord is not reasonable and bona fide. ( 3 ) IT is no doubt true that the landlord has not examined herself or her husband in support of her case, but on her behalf, her power of attorney holder has been examined in this case. The power of attorney holder is fully possessed of the relevant facts and he was therefore a competent witness to depose about the relevant matters in this case. It is because the landlord resides at Madras, it was considered more convenient to examine the power of attorney holder who knows all the facts. Having regard to these circumstances, the learned District Judge was in my opinion, not justified in drawing an adverse inference against the petitioner for not examining herself or her husband. It is because the landlord resides at Madras, it was considered more convenient to examine the power of attorney holder who knows all the facts. Having regard to these circumstances, the learned District Judge was in my opinion, not justified in drawing an adverse inference against the petitioner for not examining herself or her husband. The evidence of the power of attorney holder is to the effect that the petitioner's husband is due to retire in 1973. The learned District Judge has chosen to disbelieve the statement on the ground that no evidence has been produced to establish that the petitioner's husband is due to retire sometime in the year 1973. No material has been elicited justifying the Court to disbelieve the sworn statement of the power of attorney holder. I have therefore to proceed on the basis that the petitioner's husband is due to retire in the year 1973. ( 4 ) ANOTHER observation made by the learned Dist. Judge is that if the husband of the petitioner is due to retire in the year 1973, the application filed in the year 1969, is premature. It is not the law that for the future need one cannot file an application for eviction. Besides having regard to the realities, one cannot fail to notice that even rent control cases do take couple of years before they are finally concluded. That is what happened in this very case. The application was filed in the year 1969, and I am hearing this revision petition in the year 1973. In these circumstances if the landlord filed the applicaion in the year 1969 well in advance so that she will not be put to difficulty in the year 1973 when her husband retires, the application cannot be rejected on the ground that it was filed too early. It is also not possible to agree wtth the learned District Judge that the requirement of the landlord is not reasonable. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner owns any premises in Bangalore; but the petitioner's mother owns another premises. Merely because the petitioenr's mother owns another premises, it does not mean that the petitioner would be accommodated therein or that it would be satisfactory accommodation for the petitioner. I therefore hold that the requirement of the landlord is also reasonable. Merely because the petitioenr's mother owns another premises, it does not mean that the petitioner would be accommodated therein or that it would be satisfactory accommodation for the petitioner. I therefore hold that the requirement of the landlord is also reasonable. ( 5 ) THERE is no satisfactory evidence produced by the tenants to show that they made enquiries in regard to the Alternate accommodation and auch accommodation was not available in Bangalore. Merely because there is some difficulty in securing accommodation in the City of Bangalore, it does not follow that no, premises was available for a long number of years. I am therefore of the opinion that there is no material on record to show that greater hardship would be caused to the tenants, if an order for eviction is passed, particularly in view of the fact that the husband is due to retire in the year 1973, her college going children are to be educated, and her crippled child is to be attended to. ( 6 ) IN the result for the reasons stated above, I set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge and allow the application of the petitioner for eviction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the, learned counsel for the petitioner agreed to grant two years time from today to vacate the premises. In the circumstances of the case, I consider it just and proper to grant two years time from this date to vacate the premises. The revision petition and the application for eviction are allowed and respondents-tenants are given two years time from today to vacate the premises. No costs. --- *** --- .