( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Sec. 50 of the Karntaka Rent Control act 1961, is directed against the order of the III Addl Civil Judge, Bangalore made in HRC. 301 of 1975 whereby he dismissed the landlord's application for eviction. The facts of the case, in outline, are these: The landlord who is the petitioner before me, is a retired official. He is a widower and has crossed 76. He lives in the house of his son-in-law. Adjacent to that house, there is a small house belonging to him which is in the occupation of the respondent as tenant. The said house was allotted to the respondent by the Rent Controller on a monthly rent of Rs. 220 which was later enhanced to Rs. 250. The tenant is a Scientist in Indian Institute of Science at bangalore. The landlord, after determining the tenancy, filed an application for eviction stating inter alia : (i) That he needs the premises for his bona fide use and occupation and it is embarassing for him to stay with his son-in-law; (ii) The tenant nas been tethering buffaloes behind the premises which has been a source of nuisance to him and the adjoining residents; and (iii) The tenant without consent has sublet a portion of the premises. The tenant in his objection statement, denied all those allegations. He also said that the proceedings for eviction were motivated, since he did not agree to pay higher rent demanded by 'the landlord. He further said that if he is evicted, greater hardship would be caused to him. The learned Civil Judge, after considering the eviction adduced by the parties, held -that the landlord has not established his bona fide need to occupy the premises; that the tenant was not guilty of nuisance; that the tenant has not sublet the premises; and that the tenant would suffer grealer hardship if he is ordered to be evicted. Accordingly, he dismissed the application for eviction. Hence this revision petition. ( 2 ) THE primary contention urged before me was as regards the validity of the finding on the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The other two grounds upon which the eviction was sought, that is, subletting and committing nuisance, have not been pressed before me. ( 3 ) THE landlord has examined himself as PW. 1 He has not produced any other evidence. The other two grounds upon which the eviction was sought, that is, subletting and committing nuisance, have not been pressed before me. ( 3 ) THE landlord has examined himself as PW. 1 He has not produced any other evidence. His evidence shows that he has lived a major part of his life in the house of his son-in-law, but now he has found that it. is not convenient for him. His son lives at Indirahagar with whom also he lived for some time. This is all. the evidence he has produced to establish his bona fide requirement to occupy the premises in question. The tenant in his evidence, while denying the need of the landlord, has stated that the action of the landlord was motivated by improper consideration to extract higher rate of rent. In support of that allegation he has examined one more witness (RW. 2), upon consideration of the above evidence, the learned Judge has stated that there is no need for the landlord to have an independent establishment when he has all through lived with his son or son-in-law. The learned Judge has also observed that the inconvenience experienced or the embarrassment felt in the residence of the son-in-law, has not been explained by the landlord. He has further observed that all is well with his son-in-law and there is no necessity for the landlord to go out of that house when he is in his advanced age with nobody else to depend upon for a separate establishment. ( 4 ) MR. V. KRISHNAMURTHY, learned Counsel for the landlord strongly urged before me that the Court cannot import an opinion of its own, adverse to the landlord, when the latter proves that he wants to live in his own house, and has no other house of his own. He also said that having regard to the close affinity between the landlord and his son-in-law, it was not reasonably expected from him to explain in detail the embarrassment that he has felt in the residence of his son-in-law. The Court, according to the learned Counsel, should have appreciated the anxiety of the landlord to have a separate establishment sc that he may not become a burden to his relatives. The Court, according to the learned Counsel, should have appreciated the anxiety of the landlord to have a separate establishment sc that he may not become a burden to his relatives. ( 5 ) NOW, it is well established that merely because the landlord expresses a desire to occupy his own building which is in the occupation of a tenant, the Court will not allow his claim unless it is satisfied on the material placed before it that -the requirement of the landlord is reasonable and bona fide. (See T. N. Shankera. Rao v. S. A. Wajid (1 ). Cl (h) of the proviso to sub-sec ( (1971) 2 Myslj 29 ) of S. 21 of the Kamataka Rent Control Act upon which (the eviction was sought provides :"21 (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . Provided that the Court may on an application made to it, make an order for the recovery of possession of a premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: - * * * * (h) that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by himself or any person for whose benefit the premises are held or where the landlord is a trustee of a public charitable trust, that the premises are required for occupation for the purpose of the trust. "it is worthy of notice that Cl (h) provides that the Court may make an order for the recovery of possession of a premises, if the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord. The word 'required' as used by legal draftsmen in statutory enactments or by parties to formal contracts, has come in repeatedly for judicial interpretation. It has several meanings. Some times, it is used as directory. Lord Tenterden, CJ, in The King y. Birmingham (8 B and C 20) held that a marriage solemnized between a man and woman without a license was not invalid, although the former being a minor, whose father was living, and who did not consent to the marriage when the Act required his consent. The said word was also given a directory meaning when a statute prescribes a formality for the performance of a public duty, (See K. S. Srimvasan v. Union of India (AIR. 1958 SC 419/433 ). But sometimes it carries also a peremptory meaning. The said word was also given a directory meaning when a statute prescribes a formality for the performance of a public duty, (See K. S. Srimvasan v. Union of India (AIR. 1958 SC 419/433 ). But sometimes it carries also a peremptory meaning. In the Law Lexicon of British India by P. Ramanatha Aiyer, the word 'required' has the meaning, "to make necessary; to demand; to ask as of right". The Concise oxford Dictionary gives one more meaning to the word, i. e. , "lay down as imperative". Whatever the meaning we give to that word, the context in which it has been used in Cl (h) above referred to, the intent of the legislature appears to be clear that mere wish, desire, convenience of iancy of the landlord is not enough for him to obtain a decree for eviction. There must be a need to occupy the premises and the need must be established by acceptable evidence. The need, however, need not be of any absolute or indispensable character, but must be bona fide and reasonable. What is reasonable to one, may not be reasonable to another. Each case, therefore has to be considered on its own facts and having regard to. all the circumstances of the case, while remembering always that the avowed purpose of enacting the Rent Control Act was primarily to protect the tenants from unjust or arbitrary eviction. Even if the Court holds that the need of the landlord is reasonable and bona fide, it shall refuse to make a decree for eviction, if such decree causes greater hardship to the tenant. ( 6 ) LET me now turn to the evidence on record. According to the landlord, he is feeling embarrassed to live with his son-in-law. He wants to live separately in his own house. It may be relevant to state that the son-in-law is also his brother-in-law. He has lived a major part of his life with his son-in-law. It shows that he is more attached to his daughter. Against this background, could any one reasonably come to the conclusion that the landlord bona fide wants to have a separate establishment in his old age of 76, with nobody else to look after him? The human habits, what they are, there will be more and more desire at the old age to have company of close relations. Against this background, could any one reasonably come to the conclusion that the landlord bona fide wants to have a separate establishment in his old age of 76, with nobody else to look after him? The human habits, what they are, there will be more and more desire at the old age to have company of close relations. There is nothing on record to indicate that the landlord has become an exception to this rule of life. The Court cannot blindly accept his bare statement that it would be inconvenient or embarrassing for him to stay with his son-in-law. He should have produced some more evidence to prove his allegations. As it is. his plea appears to be no more than a mere desire without any justifying circumstances. If one looks from another angle, the need as alleged by the landlord cannoit also be said to. be bona fi. de. It seems to me that it is a device to get the tenant evicted. That becomes evident if one peruses closely the circumstances of the case and the unfounded allegations made against the tenant. The landlord alleged sub-letting of the premises and complained of other acts amounting to nuisance. But he miserably failed to prove those allegations, if I may say so, they were uncharitable allegations. It only shows that the hidden motiveof the landlord was something different from what he has pleaded. I, therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court. ( 7 ) IN the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without an order as to costs. --- *** --- .