BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 13-3-1984 of the court of XIX Additional Small Causes, bangalore City, in H R C. No. 3200 of 1982 (old H. R. C. No. 3071 of 1977 ). ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule premises and the respondent is the tenant. ( 3 ) THE material facts of the case are as follows: the petitioner had leased out the petition schedule premises for residential purpose to the respondent-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 350/ -. The petitioner is staying in the I Floor and the respondent is in occupation of the Ground Floor of the same premises. The petitioner's family, at the time of filing the eviction petition, consisted of her husband, two sons and two daughters. When the eviction proceedings were in progress before the trial court, one of the two sons got married; but the two daughters were unmarried. The I Floor is stated to consist of one verandah, one hall, one bed-room, one store, one dining hall, one pooja room and one kitchen besides toilet and a bath room. The ground floor is stated to consist of one verandah, two rooms, garage kitchen, hall and dining hall besides toilet and bath room. The II floor consist of two rooms. ( 4 ) THE family of the tenant comprises the husband and the wife and a son. The premises is situated in Palace upper Orchards, Bangalore. ( 5 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the ground floor which is in the occupation of the respondent is required as additional accommodation for her bona- fide use and occupation and also for her family members. It is also stated by the petitioner that she and her husband are aged and that they have been advised not to stay in the first floor as they are not keeping good health and, therefore, the ground floor is required for their comfortable living in addition to the first floor. It is further contended that the children of the petitioner are grown up and that they need separate accommodation for their studies. It is further contended that the children of the petitioner are grown up and that they need separate accommodation for their studies. It is also contended that the petitioner wants to celebrate the marriage of her eldest son and a separate accommodation for his living after marriage is essential and that the petitioner has a car and a scooter which are being parked in the road and exposed to bad weather apart from being unsafe since the respondent is in the occupation of the garage also. One more contention of the petitioner is that the respondent has acquired a residential premises of his own in Malieswaram area. Bangalore, and, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to continue to live in a rented premises. As regards hardship, the petitioner has contended that if the petition is allowed, the respondent will not be put to any hardship whereas if the petition is rejected, the petitioner and her family members will be put to greater hardship, irreparable loss and mental agony. According to the petitioner, a quit notice was issued to the respondent on 29-12-1976 calling upon the respondent to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule premises. However, the respondent sent a reply instead of vacating the premises. Thereafter, the petitioner proceeded to file an eviction petition against the respondent before the trial court in H. R C. No. 3071 of 1977 which came to be renumbered subsequently in H R. C. No. 3200 of 1982. ( 6 ) THE respondent filed objections and the substance of the same is a denial of the averments made by the petitioner besides contending that the petitioner is in occupation of not only the first floor, but also the second floor, in all consisting of three independent flats besides a huge vacant space on the second floor. The respondent has contended that there is enough accommodation for the petitioner to accommodate her family and the accommodation now available to the petitioner would be sufficient for even three families similar to those of the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner got the tenants in the other flats vacated since they refused to pay higher rents without any legal action but by harassment. It is also alleged that the petitioner adopted the same methods towards the respondent but in vain. It is also contended that the petitioner got the tenants in the other flats vacated since they refused to pay higher rents without any legal action but by harassment. It is also alleged that the petitioner adopted the same methods towards the respondent but in vain. According to the respondent, it is false that the petitioner and her husband are not keeping good health and that the husband of the petitioner is carrying on business of the work from morning 8'o clock and that they do not require the ground floor portion for their residence. According to the respondent, the eldest son was hardly 18 years and the others still younger. The respondent denies that the petitioner has a scooter but admits that the car which belongs to the petitioner is being used as a taxi right from the year 1969 and that all along though they had a car they never thought of making use of the garage and that the car which was being used as a private taxi was always on business in or out of Bangalore. The respondent has denied that he has a residential premises of his own as alleged by the petitioner. In regard to hardship, it is stated that the respondent is a refugee Lawyer from pakistan who came to India leaving behind all his fortunes and will be put to untold hardship and misery if evicted. It is also stated that the respondent is aged 61 years and he and his family members are keeping indifferent health. There is also a faint allegation that the petitioner and her husband are also having a number of houses benami in the names of others in Hanumanthanagar, Vyalikaval, low. er Palace Orchards and in 15th Cross, malleswaram, Bangalore. The respondent denies that the premises is required reasonably and bonafide for use and occupation. ( 7 ) THE eviction petition has been filed under Section 21 (1) (h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. ( 8 ) THE trial court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the schedule premises is required by the petitioner and if so, whether such requirement is reasonable and bonatide ? (2) Whether greater hardship would be caused by passing a decree for eviction than by refusing to pass it ? ( 8 ) THE trial court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the schedule premises is required by the petitioner and if so, whether such requirement is reasonable and bonatide ? (2) Whether greater hardship would be caused by passing a decree for eviction than by refusing to pass it ? (3) Whether the respondent has acquired vacant possession of or has built a suitable building of his own during the relevant period ? ( 9 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, two witnesses were examined. P. W-1 is the petitioner and P. W-2 is the daughter of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondent only one witness has been examined and that is the respondent. In the course of the proceedings, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the trial court for the purpose of inspecting the premises in question. The Commissioner submitted a report dated 8-6-1983. The trial court, on appreciation of the evidence recorded by it, came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the evjction petition filed by the petitioner both under sections 21 (1) (h) and (p) of the Rent control Act and dismissed the eviction petition. ( 10 ) THE point for consideration is whether the petitioner has established the need for additional accommodation and whether the need is reasonable and bonafide. ( 11 ) ACCORDING to the respondent, there are three bed rooms in the first floor and two bed rooms in the second floor which are in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and her family members. This accommodation is in addition to the verandah, a dining hall, a hall and the store room whereas according to the petitioner, the first floor consist of a verandah, hall, one bed room, one store, one dining hall, one pooja room and one kitchen. In the second floor, there are two rooms as admitted by the petitioner. There was some controversy with regard to the actual accommodation enjoyed by the petitioner and her family members. However, the report of the commissioner has clarified the position and, according to the Commissioner's report, the ground floor consist of two bed rooms each measuring 10 x 9' with attached bath room measuring 3' x 9' and in line with one garage, just beyond the garage there is a drawing room measuring 14. 9' x 10'. However, the report of the commissioner has clarified the position and, according to the Commissioner's report, the ground floor consist of two bed rooms each measuring 10 x 9' with attached bath room measuring 3' x 9' and in line with one garage, just beyond the garage there is a drawing room measuring 14. 9' x 10'. In addition, there is a dining hall with a pooja room measuring 10. 2' x 7, and 3' x 4' respectively. The kitchen measures 9' x 7'- and next to the kitchen room there is an open space, a verandah with a latrine and a bath room. The first floor consist of a bed room measuring 8. 10' x 13. 4' built on the top of the garage portion, a drawing room measuring about 14' x 10. 5' apart from a dining room measuring 14'x9. 8'. As regards the pooja room, it is stated by the Commissioner that, during the course of the inspection, he suspected whether it is a pooja room or bed room because there was a steel almirah in the alleged pooja room which measures 10' x 8. 10' apart from a wooden almirah fixed to the wall. The Commissioner also noticed in the pooja room clothes were hanging on the walls here and there. According to the commissioner, the kitchen room measures 7. 9' x 7 8' besides a store room measuring 13' x 7. 5'. According to the commissioner, the first floor has accommodation similar to the ground floor and, in addition, there is a bed room on the top of the garage. It is further stated by the commissioner in his report that, in the second floor, there are two rooms measuring 10' x 9 6' and 9' x 9' and that the open terrace measures 22' x 22' with a latrine attached and further there is a temporary wooden structure measuring 6' x 6' with a zinc sheet roofing and, in this room, wooden materials were dumped. It is also stated that there is a balcony in the second floor. After completing the inspection of the premises, the Commissioner is stated to have taken the signatures of the parties and their respective Counsels. In other woids, the inspection was carried out by the Commissioner in the presence of both the parties and their respective Counsels. It is also stated that there is a balcony in the second floor. After completing the inspection of the premises, the Commissioner is stated to have taken the signatures of the parties and their respective Counsels. In other woids, the inspection was carried out by the Commissioner in the presence of both the parties and their respective Counsels. The commissioner has enclosed the Commission Warrant, memo of instructions of both the parties, notice of the inspection date, notes, rough sketch of the premises and the order-sheet dated 9-5-1983. When the hearing of this case was in progress, there was a proposal from the respondent for an exchange of the ground floor with the petitioner for the first floor. However, the settlement failed and the case was heard on merits. ( 12 ) THERE is no evidence forthcoming from the records that, either the petitioner, or the respondent, own alternative accommodation elsewhere. A distinction has to be drawn between a case wherein the owner of a residential premises is himself living in a rented premises and a case wherein the owner is already in occupation of a portion of the premises the remaining part of which he has rented out to a tenant. In the instant case, the petitioner and her family members have been in occupation of the first floor and the second floor of the building and the tenant is in occupation of only the ground floor. The burden of proving that additional accommodation is required and that circumstances warrant additional accommodation is on the owner who seeks eviction against the tenant. Factors such as comparative accommodation as between the owner and the tenant, the number of members in the family of the owner and the tenant, the existing accommodation, want of alternative accommodation and the bonafides and the reasonableness of the requirements of the owner together constitute the valid basis for determining the question whether eviction should be granted in favour of the petitioner in the instant case. The balanced assessment of the said factors would provide a rational basis for deciding the question of eviction. ( 13 ) THE trial court has considered all the above aspects on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. The question is whether the trial court has properly considered the evidence on record in relation to the factors mentioned earlier. The balanced assessment of the said factors would provide a rational basis for deciding the question of eviction. ( 13 ) THE trial court has considered all the above aspects on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. The question is whether the trial court has properly considered the evidence on record in relation to the factors mentioned earlier. ( 14 ) AS regards accommodation which is presently in the possession and occupation of the petitioner and her family members, it cannot be gainsaid that there are three rooms in the first floor and two rooms in the second floor which could be characterised as bed rooms. Though one of the rooms is stated to be a pooja room, it is difficult to believe that a room of such a huge dimension comparable to the bed rooms in the first floor could be accepted as pooja room. The reasons given by the Commissioner suspecting whether the said room is really a pooja room seems to be bonafide. The total number of members in the family of the petitioner as on today is six only since one of the unmarried daughters got married recently and, at the same time, one of the sons got married and is living with his wife in the premises. PW-2 jayalakshmi, who is the daughter of the petitioner, has stated in her deposition that her would be husband is going to run a printing press at Bangalore and that there is no accommodation at present in the house. She said that her father promised her would be husband that he will move down to the ground floor with the family and make the first floor available to her after the marriage and therefore, she says that, if the ground floor is not occupied, the first floor and the second floor will not be sufficient for all of them. Much is sought to be made out of this statement of the daughter of the petitioner. It appears to me that the alleged subsequent event flowing from the marriage of one of the daughters of the petitioner in the nature of post-marital patronage which is patently a collateral commitment made by the petitioner in favour of her son-in-law is not only questionable but also rather dubious for the court to lend credence or legitimacy. It appears to me that the alleged subsequent event flowing from the marriage of one of the daughters of the petitioner in the nature of post-marital patronage which is patently a collateral commitment made by the petitioner in favour of her son-in-law is not only questionable but also rather dubious for the court to lend credence or legitimacy. Importing the compulsions of additional need on such a basis would be contrary to public policy. A plea of such a nature, if accepted, would not only create an unhealthy precedent but also pave the way for spurious stratagems aimed at eviction of tenants. In the matter of eviction, the Court has to guard against such circumventions of law. No additional members have been added to the family of the petitioner eversince the ground floor was let out to the respondent. In short, the strength of \the family of the petitioner has not undergone any perceptible change or increase. Considering ,the number of members in the family of the petitioner and the number of rooms available as on today, it is difficult to accept the contention that the petitioner and her family members require more accommodation. ( 15 ) THE contention of the petitioner that the married daughter should also be treated on par with unmarried daughter, does not appeal to me in the circumstances of this case. According to known custom and in the normal course, once the haughter gets married, she leaves for her husband's home to set up a separate family. In this case, it is stated that in order to enable the son-in-law to open, his business in Bangalore, the petitioner has to provide accommodation in the premises, is hard to believe. It is reasonable to suppose that the petitioner may have to extend help to her son-in-law to set up a business; but that does not necessarily mean that both the married, daughter and the son-in-law would be accommodated in the house of the petitioner for residential purpose. Even assuming that there is such an understanding, the resultant position would not conform to the rule of reasonableness in so far as additional accommodation is concerned. For this reason, the contention strongly canvassed has to be rejected. Even assuming that there is such an understanding, the resultant position would not conform to the rule of reasonableness in so far as additional accommodation is concerned. For this reason, the contention strongly canvassed has to be rejected. ( 16 ) THE grievance that the petitioner and her husband have not been enjoying good health and that, therefore, they would like to occupy the ground floor, is not a ground for entitling them to additional accommodation At best, it can only be regarded as a ground for exchange of accommodation as in the instant case such as the tenant shifting to the first floor and the owner shifting to the ground floor. As pointed out by the trial court, a clear case of ill health necessitating additional accommodation for health reasons has not been made out. The evidence in this behalf to support the contention of the petitioner is unsatisfactory. I do not consider that the needs of the petitioner and her family members are either reasonable or bonafide. the existing accommodation available to the petitioner and the members of her family are sufficient for the grown up members also particularly since there are five bed rooms which are quite spacious. The trial court was right in holding that one room would be sufficient for the petitioner and her husband and that the two daughters and two sons do not require mote than two rooms because the daughters could stay in one room and the sons could stay in another. Just because the married daughters frequently come to Bangalore to visit the parents, additional accommodation is required is not at all reasonable. Such a need is only transitory. The concept of comfort varies from person to person. But from the point of view of an ordinary and reasonable person, comfort sought should be reasonable as would be required by a fair-mind'ed person. For a family of five or six persons, if in the first floor and the second floor the total number of rooms available is five, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the accommodation is not sufficient to meet the comforts of the petitioner and her family members. For a family of five or six persons, if in the first floor and the second floor the total number of rooms available is five, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the accommodation is not sufficient to meet the comforts of the petitioner and her family members. Though the petitioner may be the owner of the entire building who is seeking the maximum comfort possible, in a growing r. 30 city like Bangalore, where it is extremely difficult to secure residential accommodation particularly at a reasonable rent and in a desirable locality, the counter-vailing interests of the tenants should also be taken into consideration. A balance has to be struck in the scale of human values in a society in which there is no right to shelter The Rent control Act is aimed at the protection of the legitimate needs of the tenants without detriment to the reasonable interest of the owners of residential and non- residential buildings. Want of accommodation and the need for shelter are human problems. While considering the demand of the petitioner for additional accommodation so as to enhance the comforts of the petitioner and her family members, the total deprivation which would result to the respondent (tenant) cannot be lost sight of. It is also necessary to bear in mind that persons like the respondent who dand not belong to the preferred Cdtegory for the purpose of allotment of houses by the rent Controller have only remote chances of securing accommodation through the Rent Controller however much they may try. ( 17 ) AS regards comparative hardship, I am of the opinion that by rejecting the petition for eviction, no hardship will be caused to the petitioner and her family members. But; on. the other hand, grave hardship and inconvenience would result to the respondent if eviction,is granted. This is my conclusion after taking an overall assessment of the evidence and facts of the case. . Taking into consideration the overall picture on the basis of the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this revision petition. ( 18 ) IN the course of the arguments. my attention was invited to several decisions by both the learned Counsels for the petitioner and the respondent. . Taking into consideration the overall picture on the basis of the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this revision petition. ( 18 ) IN the course of the arguments. my attention was invited to several decisions by both the learned Counsels for the petitioner and the respondent. I propose to consider each of the relevant decisions in the context of the evidence, facts and circumstances of this case. In the case of T. N. Shankara Rao v. S. A. Wajid, reported in 1971 (2) Mys. LJ. 29, it was held as follows :"the burden of showing that the case of the landlord falls under any one of the clauses under the proviso to S. 21 (1) of the Act is on him and that burden can be discharged by placing before the Court necessary material to come to the conclusion that he has made out his right to get the tenant evicted under any one of the clauses referred to above. "applying the above principle, I am of the opinion that the burden of proof has not been discharged by the petition in the instant case. The trial court has made an objective assessment of the evidence. I am of the view that the need of the petitioner and her family members for additional accommodation is neither reasonable nor bonafide. In the case of Gopal v. Kuppuswamy, reported in 1970 (2) Mys L. J. 324, it was held that a landlord can apply for eviction for the benefit of the married daughter also. However, the said principle is not attracted to the facts of the instant case particularly in view of the fact that it is not the case of the petitioner that the married daughter is economically dependent on the petitioner nor that the married daughter likes to live with her parents. There is no averment to that effect in the pleadings of the petitioner. In Sher Singh v. Prem Chand, reported in AIR 1980 Delhi 305, it was held that the unit of four room set is sufficient for a family of five members and that the preference of the landlord to the ground floor which was in the occupation of the tenant was held to be capricious choice and that the landlord is not entitled to evict. It was also held that the claim of the landlord is not bonafide. In that case, the landlord's family consisted of five members including himself, his wife, two sons and a daughter. In Narasimhaiah v. Subba Rao, reported in 1977 (1) Kar. L. J. 419, it was held that a mere expression of a desire to occupy will not entitle the owner to an eviction order unless the court is satisfied with the material placed before it that the need is reasonable and bonafide. In Smt. Sarla Mittal v. K. C. Jain, reported in 1982 (1) R. C. J 795, the landlord's family lived in servant quarters and garage and it was held that the landlord is entitled to live in comfort and to ask for a room for each of his children. The facts are dissimilar in the instant case. In K. N. Bhatnagar v. Dharam Paul, reported in 1978 (1) R. C. R. 49, it was held that the landlord is the best judge of his own need and that the court cannot. negative his claim unless the claim is exaggerated. The facts of the case in Jivram v. Tulshiram ( AIR 1977 SC 1357 ) are different and, therefore, the principle laid-down is not applicable. ( 19 ) BEARING in mind the principles laid-down in the above decisions to the extent they are applicable to the facts of this case, l am of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner is exaggerated and that the inconvenience and hardship, if any, to the petitioner and her family members is insignificant. Under the guise of additional accommodation, the petitioner and her family members who are already in Occupation of the entire first and the second floors have laid claim to the ground floor which has two bed rooms, a drawing room, a dining hall, a kitchen and a garage. If eviction is granted as sought by the petitioner, the net result would be that the petitioner and her family members will be in occupation of the entire building consisting of the ground floor, first floor and second floor. I do not think that the requirements of the petitioner are reasonable. ( 20 ) IN the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petition Dismissed. --- *** --- .