( 1 ) IN this Civil Revision Petition under S. 50 of the Karnataka Rent control Act, 1961 (herein-after referred to as the 'act'), the petitionertenant questions the correctness and legality of the judgement and decree dated 11-2-1975 in H. R. C. A. No. 75 of 1973 on the file of the ii Additional District Judge, Dharwar, affirming the order of eviction dated 11-12-1972 passed in Misc. No. 280 of 1965 on the file of the I Additional munsiff, Hubli. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT-LANDLORD sought the eviction of petitioner from a shop premises forming part of C. T. S. No. 1018/b situate in Ward No. 3, hubli, on the ground that respondent needed the premises bona fide and reasonably for the expansion of the business in the sales and repairs of radios etc. , which he has been carrying on in an adjacent shop in the same building. There was yet another ground for eviction under clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 21 of the Act, which however, does not survive for consideration. ( 3 ) THE proceedings were resisted by the petitioner-tenant, inter alia, contending that the alleged need of the landlord was neither bona fide nor reasonable; but was actuated by oblique motives, and that at all events, greater hardship would be caused by passing an order of eviction than what would ensue if eviction was denied. ( 4 ) IN the trial Court, the landlord and the tenant tendered evidence as P. W. 1 and D. W. 1 respectively. However, after a, protracted and somewhat checkered career, the proceedings began afresh when this court by its order dated 5-11-1974 in C. R. P. 1554 of 1971 remitted the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal. After remand the parties tendered further evidence and the respondent examined another witness -P. W. 2, Vithalsa Krishnasa Metrani on his side. One Sri P. P. Hiremath, advocate was appointed Commissioner to make a local inspection and report as to the extent of the accommodation available with the landlord. After remand the parties tendered further evidence and the respondent examined another witness -P. W. 2, Vithalsa Krishnasa Metrani on his side. One Sri P. P. Hiremath, advocate was appointed Commissioner to make a local inspection and report as to the extent of the accommodation available with the landlord. ( 5 ) THE gist of landlord's case as unfolded in the evidence on his side is to the effect that the shop in which he is carrying on business in sales and repairs of radios, watches and batteries is separated from the petition-schedule-premises by a partition made up of galavanised iron sheets ; that his family consists of 35 members, including 9 adult male members and that he requires the premises in the occupation of the petitioner for the purposes of extending his business". He also stated that he wanted to have the partition separating the two shops removed and annex the area of the petition-schedule-shop into his own business permises. ( 6 ) ON a consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court held that the requirement of the landlord was both bona fide and reasonable and that greater hardship would be caused to the landlord by declining an order of eviction than what would be occasioned to the petitioner- tenant if the eviction was granted. In that view of the matter, the trial court made an order in favour of the respondent granting him possession. ( 7 ) THE appeal preferred by the petitioner tenant against the said order having been unsuccessful, this Civil Revision Petition has come to be presented. ( 8 ) I have heard Sri W. K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R. U. Goulay, learned Counsel for the respondent. ( 9 ) SRI W. K. Joshi, urged the following contentions in support of the petition : (a) that the finding of the Courts-below that the need of the landlord was bona fide and reasonable is grossly erroneous and rendered infirm in law ; and, (b) that the finding of the Courts-below on the issue as to comparative hardship was erroneous and was the result of the erroneous approach. ( 10 ) SRI R. U. Goulay, learned counsel for the respondent, however sought to support the findings of the Courts-below. ( 10 ) SRI R. U. Goulay, learned counsel for the respondent, however sought to support the findings of the Courts-below. ( 11 ) POINT (a): The Courts below have concurrently held that the need of the landlord was both bona fide and reasonable. The question is whether this concurrent finding stands vitiated. Particulars of respondent's requirement are set-out in Para-3 of the eviction petition, which is in Kannada, and which sets out that the additional accommodation was needed for the expansion of the business and in particular for carrying out the work of repairs of radios and watches and for charging batteries. ( 12 ) IN the course of his evidence, respondent states as follows: the strength of my family consists of 35 members. Among the 35 members, nine are male adult earning members. There is a grandson of mine who is aged about 21 years. My children are not fully employed. After I began to run my radio and watch shop, I have taken out another shop building on rent. Even after taking the other shop building on rent, I still require accommodation for my business. Even in the other shop building on rent, I have been running radio and watch business. The premises in question occupied by the opponent is required for keeping my shop and for extending my business. Even after obtaining premises in question, I require some more accommodation for providing business for my other children. On 20th of last month, I took out another shop building on rent. The expenditure to be met by me is more than the income I get and hence I require the premises for developing my business. The shop building I took out recently on rent is for 3600 per year. I took out that building on rent at such a high rent because I could not get at lower rent. In case eviction is ordered, the opponent will not suffer any hardship". In the course of his cross-examination, he stated as follows there are three shops on the ground floor of the building including that of the premises in question. The third shop is used for selling foreign liquor. That was let out about two years back. Formerly there used to be nobody in that building. Similarly on the first floor, there are three rooms. The third shop is used for selling foreign liquor. That was let out about two years back. Formerly there used to be nobody in that building. Similarly on the first floor, there are three rooms. Now I say the extent of accommodation on the first floor is not same as that in the ground floor. There are only two rooms on the first floor. They have been let out to some persons whose names I do not know. They are let out on temporary basis. About a month back, both rooms have been let out. . . . . I have got an ice-cream shop at broadway and a building on rent. I have got another radio and watch shop at Maratha galli, I have got two more radio and watch shops one at Lamington and other at Koppikar road. I have no shop at Gokul road. . . . . . The shop to Deshnur was leased out subsequent to institution of these proceedings. The three rooms on the top are in my possession. "i am running in all 4 watch and Radio shops in hubli. Two shops are situated in my own buildings. The buildings owned by me are the one of which the petition premises is a portion and the other next to Kamat Hotel in Broadway. The building next to Kamat Hotel was constructed last year. It is 10' wide and 25' long i am running a lodging house in a portion of the building. I have not rented out any portion of this building. The building is a three storeyed one. The extent of the upper storeys is also 10' x 25'___ ( 13 ) THE evidence on record is to the effect that the shop premises in the occupation of the petitioner is one amongst three shops located in c. T. S. No. 1018|b. The middle shop is in the occupation of the landlord for his business in radios and watches and that on one side of that shop is the petitioner's shop. On the other side there is another shop which was vacant, and which, admittedly, was let out to a certain Deshnur for carrying on a business in about 1967 after the institution of these proceedings. Besides that, two rooms in the first floor were also let out, according to respondent's own admission somewhere in 1969. On the other side there is another shop which was vacant, and which, admittedly, was let out to a certain Deshnur for carrying on a business in about 1967 after the institution of these proceedings. Besides that, two rooms in the first floor were also let out, according to respondent's own admission somewhere in 1969. ( 14 ) SRI W. K. Joshi contends that the alleged need of the landlord for possession of the premises in the occupation of the petitioner is stated in vague terms, and that, that apan, the conduct of the respondent im letting out the very adjacent shop which was vacated and was in his actual physical possession to Deshnur after the institution of these proceedings was destructive of the bona fides on the part of the landlord. He also contended that, at all events the need of the respondent cannot be said to be reasonable, as there was no satisfactory evidence to show that that vacant shop would itself have not met the alleged need of the respondent for additional accommodation. ( 15 ) SRI R. U. Goulay, learned counsel for the respondent, however, sought to point out that while the petitioner's shop was separated from respondent's place of business by a partible zinc-sheet partition, the other shop let out to Deshnur was separated by a 1 thick load-bearing masonary wall, which could not be removed without adversely affecting the structural stability of the building. ( 16 ) IT is settled law that in order that the landlord be entitled to possession, there must, inter-alia be an element of need and not merely a desire on his part. The requirement must, at once, be both bona fide and reasonable. Possession cannot be granted in favour of the landlord unless the Court thinks it reasonable to grant it. While, a patently unreasonable requirement can also be said to lack the element of bona, fides and in that sense, the idea of "bona fides" involves also the element of "reasonableness", the language of the Statute making an order of eviction conditional upon the satisfaction of both the elements of "bona fides" and "reasonableness" would require that even a need which is bona fide, in the sense, that it is honest, must in order to become eligible to be gratified by the Court must further be shown that it is "reasonable" for the Court to grant it. ( 17 ) IT is no doubt true that in the present case though the petitioner attacked the bona fides of the respondent on the ground that the latter was actuated by oblique and collateral motives and that the proceedings were the result of the petitioner declining to be coerced into an unjust enhancement of rents, petitioner, however, admitted in the course of his evidence that respondent had at no time demanded higher rents. But, i think that even if the respodent's claim was not vitiated by malafides or oblique purposes, he has nevertheless to satisfy the Court that his need, as put forward, though honest, is also reasonable. The Court, first of all, should find out, having regard to the circumstances of the case, whether the demand made by the landlord is motivated by improper considerations, such as extracting a higher rate of rent for the premises. Then the Court should examine whether even though the requirement may be bona fide, whether it is reasonable. That has got to be determined by approaching the problem in the way in which any reasonable man would approach it. It would be necessary for the Court to take into account all the factors which are relevant for the purpose. The restraint put by the Legislation on the exercise by the landlord of his contractual or common law right to possession is not removed unless the Court thinks it reasonable to do so. 17a. Let me now examine the facts of the case in the light of the principles guiding the matter. The case of the landlord is that he has a large family, of which 9 are adult male members. He wanted additional accommodation to expand his business. I have examined the deposition of the respondent carefully and find that nowhere has he stated anything which would make the inference irresistible that his need for additional accommodation would not have been satisfied by the utilisation of the adjacent shop subsequently let out to Deshnur and that combining of the areas of the two shops into one unit was an essential factor without which the projected need would not be met. The case that he put-forw,ard in the pleadings and as amplified, in his evidence and in the evidence of his employee, P. W. 2, Vithalasa, highlights a need to expand that part of his business as related to repairs of radios and watches and charging of batteries. It is not explained how the adjacent shop which was already in respondent's occupation and which was only later let out to Deshnur would not have served this purpose. It is also not shown that even though the partition between the two shops could not be removed, how at least, an opening making for inter-connection between the two shops was also not possible. It was also clarified during the arguments that the stair-case was not attached to the partition wall, but was situate along the other and distal wall of the said adjacent shop. Further, there is no evidence on record to show whether the respondent offered to accommodate the petitioner in the vacant shop, in exchange for the accommodation in his occupation. These are certain circumstances that militate against a conclusion as to reasonableness in favour of the respondent. ( 18 ) SRI R. U. Goulay, learned counsel for the respondent, relying on certain observations of this Court in Peera Saheb v. Balachandra Rao (1971) 2 Kar. L. J. 113. contended that where the landlord's requirement was for additional accommodation for his business, it is difficult to expect any witness other than the landlord himself or his employee to speak to the conditions of that business and the extent of accommodation needed therefor, and that accordingly, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 in the present case that the shop subsequently let out to Deshnur was not suitable should be accepted. I find it difficult to accept this. Even if the alleged need of the respondent for additional accommodation is held to be honest, the question would still remain whether having regard to the fact that respondent had the immediate adjacent shop in his actual physical possession unutilised, it would be reasonable for the Court to gratify that need to the detriment of the tenant. Even if the alleged need of the respondent for additional accommodation is held to be honest, the question would still remain whether having regard to the fact that respondent had the immediate adjacent shop in his actual physical possession unutilised, it would be reasonable for the Court to gratify that need to the detriment of the tenant. ( 19 ) SRI R. U. Goulay next contended that once landlord's need was held to be honest, it was for the landlord to choose the portions needed for his additional requirements and it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to which accommodation he should restrict his demand to. The learned Counsel relied on some observations of the Madras High court in P. Gnanasambandan v. Radhakrishna Pillai l973 RCJ. 176 in this behalf. It is true that when the requirement of the landlord is held to be bona fide and reasonable it is not open to a tenant to say that the landlord should seek possession of some other accommodation in his ownership than the one in the tenant's occupation. That principle can have no application to the present case where what is to be considered is whether having regard to the conditions that existed at the time of the institution of the proceedings in the matter of the extent of accommodation actually available with the landlord, and which, but for the overt acts of the landlord himself, would have continued to exist, the present claim of the landlord for additional accommodation could be held to be reasonable. ( 20 ) SRI R. U. Goulay next contended that the Courts-below had concurrently held. as a fact, that the need of the respondent was both bona fide and reasonable and that this Court should not in revision embark upon a reappreciation of the evidence, unless there was a miscarriage of iustice. He relied on some observations of the Supreme Court in phiroze Bamini Desai v. Chandrdkant M. Patel AIR. 1974 SC. 1059. . In that case, the supreme Court was concerned with the revisional powers of the High court under Sec. 29 (3) of the Bombav Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses rates Control Act, 1947. which limited the revisional inrisdiction of the high Court only to examining whether the decision of the District Judge was "according to law". 1974 SC. 1059. . In that case, the supreme Court was concerned with the revisional powers of the High court under Sec. 29 (3) of the Bombav Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses rates Control Act, 1947. which limited the revisional inrisdiction of the high Court only to examining whether the decision of the District Judge was "according to law". But having regard to the language of S. 50 of the Act. this contention does not seem to be apposite. It is true that while the newer conferred on the High Court under S. 50 of the Act is not as narrow as the revisional power of the High Court under Sec. 115, cpc it. is not. also wide enough to make the High Court a second Court of first appeal. But having regard to the scheme of the Act and the power conferred upon the High Court under S. 50. the jurisdiction to go into the question of legality or correctness of the decision includes the power to reappreciate the evidence. The High Court can interfere if the findings of the appellate Court are shown to be erroneous (See Neta Ram v Jiwal Lal AIR. 1963 SC. 499. and P. K. Rukmini Bar v. Venkateswara Silk House AIR. 1972 Mys. 143= (1971) 2 Myslj. 635 . ( 21 ) IN the present case, in upholding the findings of the trial Court as to the bona fide and reasonableness of respondent's need, the appellate court has observed : the evidence shows that there are 35 members in the family of the respondent. His evidence shows that in order to meet the growing demands of his family, he has to expand his business in the premises also When he states that he wanted this business in the old bus stand area to be expanded for the sake of his grandson aged 21 years, it cannot be branded as not genuine. It might be that he required the petition premises for expansion to have the materials he had kept in Lamington road displayed here and to carry on the repairs. When he has closed the shop in Lamington road a stock that may be available there would require some more space. It might be that he required the petition premises for expansion to have the materials he had kept in Lamington road displayed here and to carry on the repairs. When he has closed the shop in Lamington road a stock that may be available there would require some more space. It may not be unreasonable to hold that the present premises where he is running the business would be insufficient to keep not only the articles that were already in the premises but also to keep the materials that might have been left after winding up of the business in Lamington road. " the first of these observations does not neutralise in favour of the landlord, the effect of possession of another shop. Courts below have failed to assess the effect of this circumstance on the question of reasonableness of landlord's requirement. The second observation of the learned District judge is a surmise which has no support in the evidence. ( 22 ) HAVING regard to the circumstances of the case, I think that there is considerable merit in the contention of Sri W. K. Joshi that the claim of the landlord, even if it is honest, is not a reasonable one. Point (a) is answered accordngly and against the respondent. ( 23 ) POINT (b) : So far as the question of comparative hardship is concerned, the elements that go to make up the idea of "reasonableness" and those that are germane to the idea of "comparative hardship" necessarily and in the nature of things tend to overlap. The evidence on record shows that the respondent has a number of business establishments in Hubli, two of which are admittedly run in premises owned by him. He had in his possession a vacant shop, which he let out after the commencement of the proceedings. He had some additional accommodation in the first floor of the building C. T. S. No. 1018/b which he admittedly let out to others during the pendency of the proceedings. P. W. 2 speaks to the financial stability of respondent. On the other hand, it is admitted that the tenant who has been carrying on a small time business in aerated waters in the petition shop has been carrying his trade for a number of years therein. The relative economic positions of parties is also a relevant circumstance. P. W. 2 speaks to the financial stability of respondent. On the other hand, it is admitted that the tenant who has been carrying on a small time business in aerated waters in the petition shop has been carrying his trade for a number of years therein. The relative economic positions of parties is also a relevant circumstance. It is not shown that the tenant owns or is otherwise in possession of another shop. Can, in these circumstances, it be held that hardship would be more to the landlord if the eviction is denied ? The consequence of an order of eviction would be a virtual closure of the petitioner's business. The consequences of denying it would perhaps, at best, be of some inconvenience to the landlord. The commissioner's report in the case supports this view. All the three shops are more or less of the same dimensions. The respondent let out one of them after the institution of the proceedings. In these circumstances, i have no hesitation in holding that the view of the Courtsbelow on this issue was the result of an essentially erroneous approach to the matter and requires to be reversed. I, accordingly, hold this point also in favour of the petitioner. No other contentions were urged. ( 24 ) IN the result, this civil revision petition is accepted and the orders of eviction passed by the Courts below set aside and the respondent's eviction petition dismissed. ( 25 ) IN the circumstances of the case, parties will bear their own costs both here and below. --- *** --- .