SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is filed by the tenant against an order of eviction made under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control 'act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act' ). For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred with reference to their ranking in the trial Court - i. e. , the landlord is referred as the petitioner and the tenant as the respondent. ( 2 ) THE respondent has been the tenant in respect of the schedule premises since about the year 1969. The petitioner is a hotelier by profession, who at present is residing in a portion of the building wherein he is carrying on the hotel business in partnership with his elder brother. According to the petitioner, even though the premises - was constructed in the year 1969 he did not shift immediately because he was living with his mother in the hotel building. The petitioner further states that in the year 1976 the petitioner and his elder brother constructed another hotel building called 'janardhana' which was completed in the year 1979 and in that connection he had incurred certain loans. Therefore, he borrowed a sum of Rs. 10. 000/- from one Seshappa, who was his relative and was in Government service. At that time he executed a usufructuary mortgage of the schedule premises. The said Seshappa was in need of a residential house and took the schedule premises on mortgage hoping to evict the respondent and occupy the same. Accordingly he filed an eviction petition, but during its pendency he was transferred. Thereafter the petitioner redeemed the usufructuary mortgage deed in January 1983. According to the petitioner the residence where he is residing at present (for the sake of convenience it is referred sometimes as part of the hotel building in this order) is integrally connected with the other portion wherein the hotel business is being carried on in the name and style of 'udupi Sri Krishna Bhavan' along with his brothers. The family of the petitioner consisted of himself, his wife, 3 children and two domestic servants. The eviction petition states that the hotel business of Sri Krishna Bhavan has expanded considerably and requires more accommodation for its proper functioning. The family of the petitioner consisted of himself, his wife, 3 children and two domestic servants. The eviction petition states that the hotel business of Sri Krishna Bhavan has expanded considerably and requires more accommodation for its proper functioning. The stretching of the hotel activities to the residential portion is narrated in para-7 (though the meaning of this para is subject matter of some controversy between the parties ). The petitioner also stated that the locality wherein he is residing at present is a very busy commercial locality and there is no privacy in the residential portion because of the location of the hotel in the same building and the present accommodation is very inconvenient for his relatives and friends to visit. In para-8 the various aspects of the environmental problem are stated. The petitioner also pointed out that because of these circumstances and the need for additional accommodation for the hotel business the petitioner has to shift his residence and the schedule premises is required by the petitioner bona fide and reasonably. He also refers to the notice issued to the respondent seeking vacant possession. The usual plea regarding hardship also is stated. ( 3 ) THE respondent questioned the correctness of the averments made in the petition. According to the respondent the present eviction petition is nothing but continuation of the earlier proceedings initiated by Seshappa to evict him and the petitioner has several other premises in Bangalore and that the earlier transaction with Seshappa itself was a camouflage to get the respondent evicted somehow. The respondent even denied the assertion that the petitioner has been carrying on hotel business at Chickpet in the name and style of Udupi sri Krishna Bhavan. The expansion of the business also is denied. The requirement of more accommodation for the , hotel by the petitioner is disputed. Though there is an elaborate counter, the substance of the matter is that the respondent has questioned the reasonableness and bona fide nature of the claim of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE trial Court upheld the claim of the petitioner. The requirement of more accommodation for the , hotel by the petitioner is disputed. Though there is an elaborate counter, the substance of the matter is that the respondent has questioned the reasonableness and bona fide nature of the claim of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE trial Court upheld the claim of the petitioner. It held that the locality wherein the petitioner is residing at present has developed into a highly commercial locality and that the accommodation available in the present residence of the petitioner was not sufficient for him and therefore his requirement of the schedule premises for own use and occupation is reasonable and bona fide. The trial Court also observed that greater hardship would be caused to the petitioner n case an order of eviction is not made, than the hardship that will result to the respondent by an order of eviction, because the respondent, though a tenant, is an industrialist and he can always get an alternate accommodation. It was contended before me by Sri R. N. Narasimha Murthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner has not at all made out a case of reasonable requirement and the eviction petition was not at all a bona fide action. It was contended that: (i) the eviction petition is based on two grounds which have been integrated into one in the eviction petition, i. e. , the petitioner required additional accommodation for the purpose of hotel business having regard to the expanded business and therefore the respondent will have to vacate the part of the hotel building to expand the hotel business; (ii) the surroundings wherein the petitioner is at present residing is not residential and not congenial for residence; however, the petitioner never gave any evidence regarding the expansion of the hotel business and therefore it will have to be held that the first part of the case has not been established. If so, there is absolutely no reason to order eviction on the basis of second aspet of the requirement pleaded; (iii) the locality where the petitioner is at present residing is both residential and commercial and if the petitioner has been admittedly residing in the locality ever since the year 1929 at a time when the family consisted of 20 members there is absolutely no reason for him to shift his residence to the schedule premises; (iv) the accommodation at the present residence is sufficient and it can be enjoyed independently of the hotel business and therefore the grounds pleaded in the eviction petition that it is not at all convenient to live because of the hotel activities is not correct. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the hardship will be more to the tenant because the petitioner has admittedly a premises where he is residing and there is no threat of eviction against him because he owns the said premises. It was also contended by Mr. Narasimha murthy that if Seshappa had continued as a usufructuary mortgagee and had obtained possession of the schedule premises it is not known whether the petitioner would have sought possession of the same, which itself indicates mala fide nature of the action of the petitioner. ( 5 ) 1 have to consider the following questions in this case: (1) What is the scope of the pleading and whether the petitioner sought eviction for two reasons, which are part of the same ground? (2) Whether the locality where the petitioner is residing at present, is not congenial for his residence? (3) Whether the accommodation available to the petitioner is not sufficient for him? (4) Whether the petitioner had made out a case under clause (h) of Section 21 (1) of the Act? If so, whether petitioner will suffer greater hardship if an order of eviction is not made as against the respondent's hardship that may result by an order of eviction? ( 6 ) IN KEDAR LAL SEAL and ANOTHER vs HARI LAL SEAL there was some doubt about the plea as to relief, but the Court granted the necessary relief on the basis of the material on record. ( 6 ) IN KEDAR LAL SEAL and ANOTHER vs HARI LAL SEAL there was some doubt about the plea as to relief, but the Court granted the necessary relief on the basis of the material on record. It was observed at para-51:"i would be slow to throw out a claim on a mere technicality of pleading when the substance of the thing is there and no prejudice is caused to the other side, however clumsily or inartistically the plaint may be worded. " ( 7 ) IT has always been the judicial practice to ignore technicalities in favour of substance. If parties go to trial fully aware of the respective cases, even if a particular plea or issue is missing, finding on such a case would be given. The essence of the matter is whether parties understood each other as to their respective cases. ( 8 ) THE pleading is construed by reference to all relevant allegations and the substance of the matter. Pleadings are rarely drafted artistically; even well thought out legislations give rise to conflicting interpretations. Words such as 'and', 'or', 'may', 'shall' have always resulted in rival constructions. ( 9 ) IN the eviction petition, at para-6, the petitioner has pointed out the location of the hotel and his residence in the same building; para-6 also gives the number of persons living with the petitioner. Thereafter in para-7 petitioner asserted that hotel business has expanded considerably and requires more accommodation and the para concludes with the statement that the petitioner and his brothers found it 'expedient and necessary to utilise the portion occupied by the petitioner for his residence at present, for the needs of the hotel business. " Para-8 reads: 'the petitioner also submits that the building of their hotel in which he is also residing with his family is situated in a very busy commercial locality. Due to the building of the hotel and residence being one there is no privacy in the residential portion; it is also very inconvenient for relatives and friends of the petitioner to visit the petitioner and his family. Due to the building of the hotel and residence being one there is no privacy in the residential portion; it is also very inconvenient for relatives and friends of the petitioner to visit the petitioner and his family. Further, during the working of the hotel from about 4 P. M. till 10 P. M. normally, when for most of the time the 5 Motors would be running, it has become practically impossible and very inconvenient for the petitioner and his family members to live peacefully or comfortably in the residential portion due to its close proximity to the hotel portion. The petitioner's children, who have grown up and are attending College and High Schools find it very difficult to carry on their studies at home in the noisy atmosphere and uncongenial surrounding of the residence. There is a public guest house across the road opposite to the residential portion of the premises occupied by the petitioner, which guest house has been the target of several raids by the police. There is also a Bar very close to the building. In the environmental situation of the premises the petitioner and his family are not able to live peacefully in the said house. The frequent incidents of violence and disturbance in the area and labour disputes have been the order of the day, rendering it very unsafe and also prons to tension affecting the petitioner and his family. " the first two sentences in para-9 is:"in the circumstances stated above and the need for additional accommodation for the hotel business, the petitioner bona fide and reasonably requires the schedule premises occupied by the respondent for immediate occupation by himself and his family members. Hence the petitioner after the redemption of the mortgage as aforesaid caused to be issued an advocate's notice dated 14-3-1983 to the respondent terminating his tenancy and requiring him to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises to the petitioner on the expiry of the tenancy month on 31 -3-1983. "in para-10, petitioner stated that he has no other residential premises in Bangalore and greater hardship will result to him if eviction order is not made. His assertion is not that hotel business would suffer, but petitioner would suffer for want of an alternative residential premises. "in para-10, petitioner stated that he has no other residential premises in Bangalore and greater hardship will result to him if eviction order is not made. His assertion is not that hotel business would suffer, but petitioner would suffer for want of an alternative residential premises. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the respondent, two grounds for eviction are interlinked and the need of the petitioner to shift his residence is merely, because of the additional accommodation required for the hotel business, but in the evidence absolutely no material has been placed regarding the additional accommodation for the hotel, nor no evidence as to the expanded business. Para 7 and the opening sentence in para-9 are heavily relied for this contention. ( 11 ) A look at the entire evidence, and the background of the case would show that para-7 was inartistically drafted. Para-7 essentially conveys the idea that in view of the expanded business, many of the hotel's activities are carried out in the residential premises of the petitioner. In fact, the evidence reveals that grinders, switch boards, store-rooms, underground water storage tank etc. , have been located in the residential premises. Because the hotel business is a partnership business of petitioner and his brothers and the two portions of the building are integrated, expediency and necessity compelled the parties to utilise the residential portion occupied by the petitioner for the hotel purposes. Para-7 does not convey that after petitioner vacates the residential portion, it will be occupied for hotel purposes. The idea conveyed is the fact as it exists. The background to the eviction petition is the quit notice dated 14- 3-1983 (Ex. P-10 ). The notice refers to the redemption of the mortgage and then states that the petitioner requires the premises for his personal occupation. ( 12 ) PARTIES knew what they are fighting for. Entire evidence of P. W-1 is to establish the inconvenience caused to him at the present place of residence and the uncongenial surroundings wherein it is located; the paucity of sufficient space in the present place for living is the other aspect of the evidence. R. W. 1 knew what he has to face at the trial. Entire evidence of P. W-1 is to establish the inconvenience caused to him at the present place of residence and the uncongenial surroundings wherein it is located; the paucity of sufficient space in the present place for living is the other aspect of the evidence. R. W. 1 knew what he has to face at the trial. He, too, concentrated only on this aspect by elaborating on the space available to P. W-1 at present and that the environment of the present accommodation was not abhorrent to a good living. He understood the case, sought to be made out by P. W-1, though as r. W. 1 he admits that the hotel of the petitioner is "running very well" petitioner was highlighting that in view of the expanded business of the hotel, the residential premises has been partly used for the hotel and therefore residence therein was not, comfortable and privacy has been lost. ( 13 ) MR. K. R. D. . Karanth contended, apart from the above construction, that the eviction petition, at the most placed two alternative grounds for eviction: (i) hotel needs additional space and hence petitioner has to vacate his residential portion and (ii) petitioner cannot live in the present locality which is not congenial for peaceful living, that there was no sufficient space for living etc. These grounds are to be understood (assuming the respondent's contention is the correct one), as an alternative in character and not cumulative in substance. If so, it is always open to the petitioner to give up one of the grounds and concentrate on the remaining ground for eviction. The word 'and' in the opening sentence of para-9 does not convey that both the grounds are interlinked or both the grounds cumulatively caused the petitioner to seek eviction; as is well known, the word 'and' could be used as conveying an independent further reasoning stated thereafter. That is why, para-9 refers to "in -the circumstances stated above" as referring to the facts in para-8. That is the main ground for eviction; the word 'and' thereafter states that 'in addition thereto' or 'further' the need for additional accommodation for the hotel business. That is why, para-9 refers to "in -the circumstances stated above" as referring to the facts in para-8. That is the main ground for eviction; the word 'and' thereafter states that 'in addition thereto' or 'further' the need for additional accommodation for the hotel business. In a simpler form, the drafting could have been to state that apart from the requirement of the petitioner for a larger accommodation in a congenial atmosphere to live, there is also one more ground of the hotel's need, which compels the petitioner to shift his residence. This construction placed by Mr. K. R. D. Karanth also looks to be reasonable, when one looks at the evidence in its entirety. A failure to prove the additional ground for eviction, therefore, cannot be a reason to reject the eviction petition. ( 14 ) RE: Environment of petitioner's present residence and space available: balepet main road is on the east, touching the hotel building. Residential premises is on the western side of the hotel. This is clear from the sketch (Ex. P-6 ). Naidu's Bar and Restaurant is in the building situated north of the hotel and the residential premises, with only one small passage in between the hotel and the said building. In between the western end of the building in which Nadu's Bar is located and the present residential premises of the petitioner, the vacant space is slightly more i. e. , a portion of the said building (wherein Naidu's Bar is located) which admittedly is to the north of the petitioner's residential premises is slightly at a greater distance than the distance between other portion of the said building and the hotel building. ( 15 ) THE hotel building bears the present Municipal Numbers 123, 124 and 125. The residential premises is No. 7, O. T. C. Road and both buildings are connected to each other as per P. W. 1, which is fully corroborated by the sketch Ex. P-6. The petitioner resides in a portion of No. 7, O. T. C. road and the remaining portion is being used for the hotel purposes. The first and second floors of No. 7, O. T. C. road are reflected in the plans Ex. P-7 and P-8, wherein coloured portions are used for hotel purposes, such as cash room, office, hotel workmen's rest room and a study room. The first and second floors of No. 7, O. T. C. road are reflected in the plans Ex. P-7 and P-8, wherein coloured portions are used for hotel purposes, such as cash room, office, hotel workmen's rest room and a study room. It is clear that in the II Floor the constructed area is utilised entirely for the hotel purpose (hotel worker's rest room and study room ). In the first floor, a part is occupied by the landing space; one room is used as a cash room, another as office and one room by the hotel workmen's rest room. The residential area in the first floor consists of one hall, one bed room; 'cash room' also is used for residential purposes as per P. W-1. In the ground floor, the store room is used by the hotel; a part is used for underground water tank (water for hotel purposes according to p. W-1; probability is water may be used from this, for residential use also ). For residential use, petitioner has in the ground floor one hall, one kitchan, one pooja room, a bath-room and a toilet. This is what p. W-1 states. ( 16 ) P. W-1 further states that in the southern portion of this premises (7, O. T. C. road), there is one, more room used for hotel premises, wherein grinders are kept. A bath-room exists in this part, which is used for hotel purposes. Another room is stated to be a grinding room of the hotel, wherein power driven grinders are fixed. There is also a stair-case here in the western part of this building, leading to I floor. The western end of this building touches Municipal lane. ( 17 ) P. W-1 stated that the hotel workers frequently come to the store-room and cash-room and the grinders are working throughout the day. Privacy to those who reside in the house is always disturbed. The electric switch board is stated to be in the residential portion and the electrical installation is of 125 HP. There are 3 water power pumps, a borewell pump, two power grinders, one power coffee grinder. P. W-1 further states that the machines work from 4 A. M. to 8 p. M. and there is lot of noise, apart from the disturbances from the hotel. There are 3 water power pumps, a borewell pump, two power grinders, one power coffee grinder. P. W-1 further states that the machines work from 4 A. M. to 8 p. M. and there is lot of noise, apart from the disturbances from the hotel. ( 18 ) ACCORDING to P. W-1, there is a Bar (referring to Naidu's Bar) to the north of the residential portion at a distance of 2 to 3 ft. He states that there is a guest house in front of the residence at a distance of about 15 ft. wherein rooms are let out daily on a rent of Rs. 2/- to 3/ -. Later he stated that it was about 50-60 ft. from the house. According to him this guest house is the scene of immoral activities and on several occasions, it was being raided. There is also a car painting workshop near the house of P. W-1. In view of the godown nearby, there is frequent movement of carts, which are being parked in front of the house. ( 19 ) THE family of P. W-1 consists of himself, his wife, two daughters, a son, his uncle's son and two servants. The children were studying at the time of the evidence. From the residential premises to , o. T. C. road (Old Taluk Cutcherry road) opening through a cross road exists, but according to P. W-1 cars can move in that cross road with great difficulty. At one time after the father of P. W-1 purchased the property (purchase was in the year 1929), about 20 persons were living in the said house; the hotel business was started in the year 1926. The hotel premises and residential premises were qne property, as per P. W-1, though there is a vacant space of about 10-15 ft. in between the two premises. P. W-1 admitted the correctness of the plan of the premises prepared by the Commissioner. P. W. 1 also states that there is no door from the residence to the hotel in the ground floor. The next sentence in the deposition shows that there is entrance from the store room, hall and kitchen of the residence to go to the adjoining store room, grinding room and bath room. P. W. 1 also states that there is no door from the residence to the hotel in the ground floor. The next sentence in the deposition shows that there is entrance from the store room, hall and kitchen of the residence to go to the adjoining store room, grinding room and bath room. The rest room for the workmen in the 2nd floor is not sufficient in view of the increase in the number of workers due to increase in the business and the hotel's working hours was between 6. 30 A. M. to 11. 45 P. M. and 2. 45 P. M. to 8 P. M. ( 20 ) REGARDING Naidu's Bar, P. W-1 once again states that, it is to the north of his residence and the lane in between is about 10-11 ft. width. ( 21 ) THE width of the lane in the front of the residence is stated as 10-12 ft. P. W-1 expresses his fear against lodging a complaint against the guest house people by saying that, if he gives any complaint to police he cannot live. ( 22 ) RESPONDENT-TENANT as R. W. 1 deposed that he had seen the present residential premises of P. W-1. According to him there is a separating wall between the hotel and the residential portion. He admits that there is no compound to the residential premises in No. 7, o. T. C. road and the entrance door is adjacent to the said lane. Though existence of various shops, Naidu's Bar, godowns and the guest house are admitted by him, their proximity to the residential premises of P. W-1 is questioned by him. He asserts that there is no disturbance to the living, by the grinders or other activities of the hotel and according to him, some of the areas and a room in the house, were being used for hotel purposes since about 2 or 3 years to make out a case for the eviction petition. The Commissioner's Report dated 4-4-1985 substantiates the statement made by P. W-1. At para-3 he notes that the petitioner's house is surrounded by one lakshminarasimha Guest House, G. K. Footwear, Kesari Furniture shop, Popular Foot Wear, K. H. I. Tailors, carpenter godown and naidu's ar and Restaurant. In between the hotel (of the petitioner) and the house of the petitioner, there is an open space of about 7 to 8 ft. At para-3 he notes that the petitioner's house is surrounded by one lakshminarasimha Guest House, G. K. Footwear, Kesari Furniture shop, Popular Foot Wear, K. H. I. Tailors, carpenter godown and naidu's ar and Restaurant. In between the hotel (of the petitioner) and the house of the petitioner, there is an open space of about 7 to 8 ft. which is a passage from the entrance of the southern door. The house is situated in OTC cross-road. From the southern door of the hotel, access is to the stair case room leading to the residence. The commissioner says:"and on the northern side of the passage there is a stair case which leads to the servant quarters which also leads from servant quarters to the petitioner's residential portion and the main building Udupi Krishna Bhavan is separated by only a parapit wall. On the southern side entrance and in the passage available this Commissioner found the existence of grinding room and basin, washing case and makes a way to the residential portion of the petitioner's in the first floor. There is a well and a borewell in this passage. No doubt it may appear as an access to the petitioner's portion but it cannot be used by elderly members, children, ladies and the guests who visits the house situated in the first floor. Because cleaning water is spread in the passage and usual work of cleaners and suppliers of the hotel will be always there. "at para-7 Commissioner states that there is no appraoch to the residence from the main road; it is located in a congested and totally non-residential busy area; the perpetual noise and obstruction from the hotel portion to the residential portion in view of the business and the smoke from the kitchen and washing and cleaning of the hotel are also mentioned here and the para concludes with an observation that "in view of this there is no privacy to the inmates of the petitioner's family. " There is a further report dated 21 -7-1985; the accommodation available to the petitioner-landlord are noted; the description of surrounding premises and their contents are also noted in this Report. At para-11, the Commissioner states,"the approach lane leading to the petitioner's residence from Balepet main road is totally a non-residential area with shops and public urinals without any residential houses. At para-11, the Commissioner states,"the approach lane leading to the petitioner's residence from Balepet main road is totally a non-residential area with shops and public urinals without any residential houses. The approach lane from the OTC road to the petitioner's residence like all consists of non-residential premises. " ( 23 ) 1 have referred to these salient features in the depositions of parties and the report of the Commissioner, in view of Mr. R. N. Narasimhamurthy's emphatic contention that, the locality in which petitioner is residing now cannot be held to be not congenial for living and that petitioner has exaggerated the inconveniences and hindrances to a comfortable living. ( 24 ) CHICKPET and Balepet are the most busiest and noisy commercial localities in Bangalore. Even a comfortable movement on the roads and lanes is not possible. Vehicles of all sorts including hand pushed carts are found in abudance. The Court cannot ignore the notoriety of these localities for the noise that continuously prevails in these areas. The Commissioner's Report corroborates the statement of P. W-1 that the area wherein his present residence is located, is not congenial for a comfortable living; the Report strengthens the case of P. W-1 that the activities in the hotel intrude into the residential area of the petitioner, resulting in the deprivation of privacy. ( 25 ) ADEQUACY of Accommodation: There is no serious dispute as to the number of persons living with the petitioner. The deposition of P. W-1 read with the Report of the Commissioner as well as the plans Exs. P-6, P-7 and P-8 establish that the accommodation available in the present residence of P. W-1 consists of a hall, kitchen, bath room and pooja and toilet in the ground floor; a hall and two bed-rooms in the first floor; a cash room in the first floor which is also used as a bed room, though it is accessible from the hotel as well as from the residential portion and no living space in the II floor. ( 26 ) THE servant's rest room, the cash room of the hotel and the frequent movements of the workers even on the first floor are likely to result in disturbing the life in the I floor. ( 27 ) THE accommodation for five members (petitioner, his wife and three children) apart from the two domestic servants is stated as insufficient by P. W-1. ( 27 ) THE accommodation for five members (petitioner, his wife and three children) apart from the two domestic servants is stated as insufficient by P. W-1. ( 28 ) IT was contended that at one time, when petitioner's parents were alive, about 20 persons were living in the very place, as stated by P. W-1, if so, it cannot be now said that the accommodation for five is insufficient. This contention overlooks two aspects: 1) initially the larger family was living here, at a time the hotel business was started by the father of P. W-1. The financial position of the family must have been comparatively lower than the present situation. The locality grew up as a centre of commercial activity in the course of years eversince 1926. The noise around and the difficulty of access to the area grew as years passed by. R. W-1 admitted that now, petitioner's hotel is running very well. ( 29 ) THE other aspect is the obvious change in the life style of the petitioner, in the sense, petitioner and his brothers get good education and his children also are having higher education. An aspiration to live in a more congenial atmosphere, leaving the busy, commercial locality, slowly devel'ops in such a situation. Effect of material prosperity and the education on the members of the family of P. W-1 cannot be ignored, while testing the contention of the learned Counsel for the tenant. ( 30 ) THE requirement of a person depends, not only on the number of persons in the family, but also other circumstances referred above. A particular desire to have a better atmosphere to live may be in the realm of fancy for a few unfortunate souls; but for others it may be of utmost necessity; which is considered as a luxury by one, will be considered as an absolute necessity by another. The genuineness of the need and its reasonableness are to be considered in the background of the person, who puts forth the case of requirement. The genuineness of the need and its reasonableness are to be considered in the background of the person, who puts forth the case of requirement. The Court has to examine as to whether the need spoken to by the landlord is a genuine need, not with reference to the background and situation of men in general; otherwise, a slum dweller who has been fortunate enough to become prosperous and educate members of his family, will not be able to seek eviction of his tenant from a good locality so that he may shift to live comfortably. Man is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his enterprise and human effort normally, is to seek better living conditions. The test of reasonableness, no doubt, is objective. But objectivity cannot ignore the realities of life, Court has to examine, whether in the situation and the background of the landlord, whether any reasonable person would require to shift his residence and require a residence in a better locality. Care -has to be taken to eschew any subjective approach, in the sense, the motives and emotions of the particular landlord should not influence the decision. No doubt, thereafter considerations relevant under Section 21 (4) also will have to be applied. ( 31 ) WHEN can a requirement be termed as reasonable? A requirement which is neither capricious nor unfair nor absurd in the facts and circumstances of the particular case and when it is not motivated to gain higher rent or by illwill towards the tenant, the requirement is to be held as reasonable. A Bench of this Court in T. N. I shankararao and BROS, vs S. A. WAJID through E. S. Venke'aramiah, J. , (as he then was) held:-"a Court before deciding whether the landlord reasonably and bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation, should take into account all relevant circumtances as they exist at the time of the hearing of the case. It must approach the problem in a broad common sense way as a man of the world and come to a conclusion giving such weight as it thinks right to the various facts. Some factors may have little or no weight. Others may be decisive but it is quite wrong to exclude from consideration any matter which the Court should take into account. Some factors may have little or no weight. Others may be decisive but it is quite wrong to exclude from consideration any matter which the Court should take into account. 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 same premises from the tenant in occupation or letting it out at a higher rate of rent to somebody else after the tenants have vacated. A decision on these questions would show whether the requirement of the landlord is bona fide or not. Then the Court should examine whether even though the requirement may be bona fide whether it is reasonable. That has got to be determined as already stated, by approaching the problem in the way in which any reasonable man would approach. The Court may have to take into account the need of the landlord and the members of his family to occupy the premises. While deciding the above question it is necessary for the Court to take into account all the factors which are relevant for the purpose of determining that question. It is not possible to set out exhaustively all the factors which will go into the determination of these questions. They vary from case to case. If the Court on a consideration of the material before it, comes to the conclusion that the landlord does not reasonably and bona fide require the premises, it should proceed to dismiss the petition. But if the Court comes to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord is reasonable and bona fide, then it should proceed to examine the case in the light of Section 21 (4) of the Act and determine whether having regard to all the circumstances including the question whether other reasonable accommodation is available for the landlord or the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. We may however make it clear that merely because the landlord expressed 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. We may however make it clear that merely because the landlord expressed 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. " ( 32 ) THE oft quoted observations of the Supreme Court in MST. BEGA BEGUM and OTHERS vs ABDUL AHAD KHAN BY L. Rs. and others are:". . . . THE words 'reasonable requirement' which undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire as the High Court has done in this case. It seems to us that the connotation of the term 'need' or 'requirement' should not be artificially extended nor its language so unduly stretched or strained so as to make it impossible or extremely difficult for the landlord to get a decree for eviction. " ( 33 ) MR. K. R. D. Karanth, the learned Counsel for the petitioner also cited LINGAJOIS vs SHAMA RAO, B. S. wherein, it was held:"it would not be a correct proposition to hold that if the landlord somehow manage with the limited accommodation which is obviously insufficient for him, he should be made to stay with that accommodation for all the time in future even though circumstances may change in his favour. One does not merely exist but lives, and from that point of view, the requirement of the landlord will have to be considered as his need has not only to be bona fide but also reasonable. The family of the landlord no doubt consists of himself, his wife and two young unmarried daughters. If he is in a position to occupy a more convenient accommodation by asking his tenant to vacate as he can now afford that accommodation in changed family circumstances, a reasonable and bona fide requirement may be held to be established and there can be no reason to disallow his request simply on the ground that he has so long suffered living in a limited accommodation and hence should suffer living in that accommodation also in future. " ( 34 ) IN ROSHAN LAL AGGARWAL vs MADHUSOODAN SHARMA and OTHERS Court held that standard of the living of the landlord while considering the reasonableness of his need, is a relevant consideration. ( 35 ) THOUGH the petitioner is a hotelier, the family seems to be well educated. His first daughter was studying MA, at the time he spoke as P. W-1. The 2nd daughter and the son were in II Pre- University class. His uncle's son residing with him was in Final B. E. One brother of the petitioner is residing separately in Kumara Park, Bangalore; his elder brother has passed Law; the 2nd brother is a Ph. D. holder; the 3rd brother has studied only upto SSLC; petitioner is a graduate. This apart, petitioner was allotted only southern half of the O. T. C. premises in the partition effected by a Deed dated 5-8-1983. The hotel business belongs to the petitioner and his elder brother. ( 36 ) IN the eviction petition, petitioner has given two reasons for eviction: (i) the additional space required or occupied by the expanded hotel business and (ii) the requirement of an independent residential premises for the petitioner, and the present locality having become commercial and not congenial for a good living. Petitioner has made out a case that he requires shifting of his residence and the activities of the hotel having intruded into the residential portion has added to the environmental problems faced by him. ( 37 ) THE existing residence of the petitioner is inadequate for the family of the petitioner; it is located in a busy commercial area; the premises is interconnected to the hotel premises and the privacy of the members is frequently disturbed; the noise caused by the hotel activities the grinding, the lifting of water etc. , will be disturbing the residents. Access to the residence is not easy due to congestion in the lane and the main road. In the background of the petitioner and the members in his family, if the petitioner decides to choose a better place to live and chooses his premises hitherto leased to a tenant, such a decision cannot be held to be lacking in bona fides; the decision, thus taken by the petitioner, has the backing of a reasonable requirement. In the background of the petitioner and the members in his family, if the petitioner decides to choose a better place to live and chooses his premises hitherto leased to a tenant, such a decision cannot be held to be lacking in bona fides; the decision, thus taken by the petitioner, has the backing of a reasonable requirement. ( 38 ) THE schedule premises was leased to the respondent in the year 1969; at that time the rent fixed was Rs. 375/- per month, which itself is an indication of the accommodation available in the leased premises. Ex. P-9 is the plan of the schedule premises. The commissioner says in his Report that the condition of the said premises is highly appreciable and good with an attractive look both internally and externally. It is in a residential locality. It has a verandha; a study room and a hall; there is a stair case room. There are two bed rooms each with attached bath-room and a toilet. There is an open space measuring 25' x 60' on the western side and an open space of 5' x 40' in the front. There is a lavatory at the rear side and a door leading to the garage. The plan Ex. P-9 also shows the existence of a pooja room, a kitchen and the rear side bath room and lavatory. Though stair case has been put up, it leads to the open terrace. ( 39 ) THE room referred as study is 11'9" x 6'9" and the hall measures 12' x 23' as Ex. P-9. The locality is entirely residential as noted by the Commissioner and spoken to by P. W-1. R. W. 1 (the tenant) also admits that his premises is in a purely residential locality and there is not much traffic in the road and further that there is no problem about the privacy. ( 40 ) AT one stage, the respondent as R. W. 1 stated that the petitioner offered to sell the schedule premises to him, before he mortgaged it in the year 1980, but backed out of the offer. But there is no such evidence on record. It is possible to infer from this statement of R. W. 1 that, R. W. 1 has been angling to purchase the schedule premises, without success. Any how this is besides the point in issue. But there is no such evidence on record. It is possible to infer from this statement of R. W. 1 that, R. W. 1 has been angling to purchase the schedule premises, without success. Any how this is besides the point in issue. ( 41 ) IN these circumstances, I have no hesitation in concurring with the trial Court that the petitioner's requirement is bona fide and reasonable. I have referred to this aspect in detail, in view of the repeated contention of Sri Narasimha Murthy, that the trial Court has not discussed the issue of requirement being reasonable and bona fide independently, except generally referring to the evidence on record. ( 42 ) THE points framed by the trial Court are at para-15 of its order. Thereafter the trial Court has devoted paras 16 to 22 to the respective cases of the parties, the evidence led by them, their depositions and the Commissioner's report. Para-23 starts with a reference to the report of the Commissioner regarding the schedule premises, (in earlier paras, the trial Judge has summarised the Report regarding the locality, environment and the present residence of the petitioner ). Thereafter in para-23, trial Court proceeds to refer to the circumstances of the case and deals with the allegations of lack of bona fides, and the earlier eviction petition filed by the mortgagee seshappa against the respondent. The trial Court negatived the respondent's contention in this regard by observing that the need of the petitioner is to be seen on the date of the petition and the circumstances regarding the execution of the mortgage earlier, as irrelevant. Thereafter the Court refers to the relevant principles governing the case under Section 21 (1) (h ). Mr. Narasimhamurthy is justified in criticising the Judgment of the trial Court on the ground that no specific inference from the evidence on record, have been stated by the trial Court. But, it is clear that the trial Court had before it the correct principles to be applied and all the relevant facts were considered before making the ultimate order. ( 43 ) SINCE the trial Court is primarily the fact finding Court, and the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 50 is limited to examine only certain aspects of the records, the learned Counsel urged that the matter should be remitted back. ( 43 ) SINCE the trial Court is primarily the fact finding Court, and the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 50 is limited to examine only certain aspects of the records, the learned Counsel urged that the matter should be remitted back. Normally, I would have done so, if the appreciation of material on record is capable of leading to two or more diverse conclusions. But here, on the material on record it is not possible to reasonably come to any other conclusion, except that the petitioner reasonably requires the schedule premises for his own occupation; and the said requirement is bona fide. ( 44 ) THE jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 50 is to examine the legality or correctness of the order of the trial Court; the examination as to the correctness involves appreciation of evidence though as a matter of prudent practice, even first appellate Court would not interfere with a finding of fact based purely on appreciation of evidence, unless such a finding is entirely improbable. To the same effect is the ratio of the decision in SMT. RAJBir KAUR and ANOTHER VS M/s. S. CHOKOSIRI and CO. the Supreme Court observed:-"but in cases where there is no question of the credibility or reliability of any witness and in cases where the point in dispute is the proper inference to be drawn from proved facts, an appeal court is generally in as good a position to evaluate the evidence as the trialjudge is. . . . "thereafter, at para-19 the approach to be adopted which is applicable to the instant case is stated:"the area in which the question lies in the present case is the area of the perceptive functions of the trial Judge where the possibility of errors of inference does not play a significant role. The question whether the statement of the witnesses in regard to what was amenable to perception by sensual experience as to what they saw and heard is acceptable or not is the area in which the well known limitation on the powers of the appellate Court to reapprciate the evidence falls. The appellate Court, if it seeks to reverse those finding of fact, must given cogent reasons to demonstrate how the trial Court fell into an obvious error. "mr. The appellate Court, if it seeks to reverse those finding of fact, must given cogent reasons to demonstrate how the trial Court fell into an obvious error. "mr. Narasimhamurthy's proposition is that, in case the trial Judge in the instant case, had on a detailed discussion of the material on record, held that the landlord has not made out his case of reasonable and bona fide requirement, this Court could not have interfered with such a finding and therefore, when this primary function of appreciation of evidence has not been discharged by the trial Court, this Court should not venture into examining the evidence on record; the benefit of a proper decision by a trial Court should be available to the parties. This proposition certainly is attractive. But, if no useful purpose will be served in a particular case by remanding the matter because of the only inevitable conclusion possible from the evidence on record, this Court should not burden the trial Court by remitting the case. The privilege and power of a superior Court enabling it to remand a case for a fresh decision, without requiring further evidence should not be exercised lightly. It is only in rare cases, where the lower Court has not at all referred to and considered the evidence on record and the indication is that there has been a total non-application of mind by the Court and reasonably a different conclusion is possible by the trial Court, the higher Court should remand the case for a fresh decision. Normally, a remand order is made when fresh evidence has to be recorded or new facts are to be probed. In fact, the policy of law is indicated by Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the function of the High Court under Section 100 CPC is limited to examine only questions of law, and it has no competence to reappreciate facts, under certain circumstances, the High Court has been empowered to appreciate the evidence, for instance, when the evidence on record has been ignored by the lower Court. Similarly order 41 Rule 23 CPC limits the scope of remanding power to certain circumstances. ( 45 ) PUBLIC interest is not irrelevant here. With the pendency in Courts increasing every day, the superior Courts owe a responsibility not to burden the subordinate Courts with avoidable works. Similarly order 41 Rule 23 CPC limits the scope of remanding power to certain circumstances. ( 45 ) PUBLIC interest is not irrelevant here. With the pendency in Courts increasing every day, the superior Courts owe a responsibility not to burden the subordinate Courts with avoidable works. ( 46 ) IT is not the case of Mr. Narasimhamurthy that any relevant evidence has been omitted to be recorded by the trial Court; nor did he contend that it is necessary to lead fresh evidence on any relevant issue. His grievance is that the trial Court has not exhaustively discussed (in contradistinction to its act of summarising) the evidence on record. I have, therefore considered the facts in detail and I am of the view, that the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is the only reasonable conclusion possible in this case; I reject the request of the learned Counsel for remanding the case, to the trial Court. ( 47 ) RE. Motive: Mortgage Etc. It is necessary to refer to the allegations of mala fides. In the year 1980, petitioner had usufructuorily mortgaged the schedule premises to one Seshappa, who is his relative, for a sum of Rs. 10. 000/ -. This enabled Seshappa to sue the respondent for eviction. According to the petitioner, Seshappa who was in Government Service was transferred and therefore he did not proceed with the eviction petition; the petition was dismissed as withdrawn in the year 1982. Thereafter, the mortgage was redeemed by the petitioner. According to respondent the present eviction petition is a continuation of the previous attempt to evict him. There is no dispute that Seshappa is a relative of the petitioner and he is in Government Service; the usufructuary mortgage was for a period of 5 years. According to the petitioner, at the time of constructing another hotel by name 'hotel janardhana', petitioner and his brother had to raise certain loans and in that connection while borrowing Rs. 10,000/- from Seshappa, usufructuary mortgage was executed for a short duration; Seshappa who was then in service in Bangalore required a residential premises for his own occupation. In the evidence of P. W-1 nothing was brought out establishing any mala fides on the part of the petitioner. The respondent, as R. W. 1 also has not disclosed as to why the petitioner's action is motivated. In the evidence of P. W-1 nothing was brought out establishing any mala fides on the part of the petitioner. The respondent, as R. W. 1 also has not disclosed as to why the petitioner's action is motivated. As R. W. 1 he stated that the petitioner's intention is to sell the schedule premises; while in the objection statement to the eviction petition, respondent pleaded (at para-9) that, the eviction petition is only an excuse to extract higher rent from the schedule premises. At the same time, R. W. 1 admits that the petitioner's 'hotel business is running very well'. Respondent has not established the real purpose sought to be achieved by the petitioner by this alleged motivated action. ( 48 ) IN the year 1980, when the petitioner and his brother required urgent funds, petitioner would have borrowed from Seshappa; with the successful running of the hotel, the need for keeping alive the loan ceased. It is not possible to attribute mala fides to the petitioner, solely because, Seshappa filed an eviction petition earlier. Mr. Narasimhamurthy contended that, if in the year 1980 petitioner was willing to usufructuorily mortgage the schedule premises and seshappa had occupied it, and continued in its occupation, petitioner would not have sought possession of the premises; this at least demolishes the petitioner's case of requirement. This contention overlooks the fact that the mortgagee was related to petitioner, the amount borrowed was only Rs. 10,0001- and the period of mortgage was only five years; in the year 1985, petitioner would have obtained the possession In this regard the question was posed to the petitioner and his explanation was elicited when he was deposing as P. W. 1. What would have been his answer to the contention of the learned counsel, therefore, is in the realm of possibilities only and one such possibility suggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has been stated above. It is also possible that Seshappa would have agreed to give up the mortgage in the year 1983 when the petitioner realised that he required the schedule premises for his cwn occupation. From this realm of possibilities Court cannot definitely infer lack of bona fides to the petitioner's requirement. If the order of eviction is denied to the petitioner, resultant hardship to him will be certainly greater than the inconvenience that may result to the respondent-tenant by an order of eviction. From this realm of possibilities Court cannot definitely infer lack of bona fides to the petitioner's requirement. If the order of eviction is denied to the petitioner, resultant hardship to him will be certainly greater than the inconvenience that may result to the respondent-tenant by an order of eviction. Petitioner has no other premises in Bangalore wherein he may reside, except the present place which has been found to be not suitable and congenial for the residence. The tenant, R. W. 1, is a well to do industrialist; he has two industrial units, one in Ramaiah's Industrial Estate and another in mahadevapura. R. W. 1 states that he did not make any attempt to secure alternate accommodation, nor did he apply to the Rent controller for allotment of a house. The fact that he has to search for another house in view of the eviction is not a ground to hold that he would suffer hardship. ( 49 ) IN the result, the order under Revision is upheld. This petition is dismissed. The respondent is granted time till the end of March 1991 to handover vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner, subject to paying the current rents regularly and promptly and filing an affidavit of undertaking in this Court within a month from today agreeing to vacate the schedule premises by the end of March 1991. --- *** --- .