S. A. HAKEEM, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition by the landlord is directed against the trial Court's order rejecting his claim for eviction of the tenant on the grounds under Section 21 (lxh) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act' ). ( 2 ) THE premises is a shop in which the tenant is having its godown. The tenancyis not disputed. The landlord's case, as pleaded earlier, was that the premises is required reasonably and bona fide for setting up his own business as he has no other avocation. Later, he sought for amendment of the petiiion by incorporating para 6 (a) lo the petition, that, having completed his M. B. B. S. course he intends to set up and carry on medical practice for which purpose the premises is reasonably and bona fide required by him. ( 3 ) THE landlord's further case is that the tenant has built a suitable alternate accommodation bearing No. 37, Old No. 28, Subedar Chatram Road, facing kempegowda Circle, Bangalorc-9. That, the new premises in his possession has tbree times the accommodation that was available to the tenant earlier. In the' circumstances, the tenant has forfeited his right to continue in occupation of the schedule premises and hence liable to be evicted under clause (p) of Section 21 (1) of the Act. ( 4 ) THE tenant resisted ihe claim by denying the landlord's requirement being bona fide and reasonable and pleading greater hardship to itself. The tenant has further denied that it has acquired any suitable premises for its business. It is pleaded that only a new construction is put up at their own cost in another premises which is already under lease to them, for which they arc paying enhanced rent to another landlord. It is further stated that the premises was taken on lease as a godown and they continue to utilise the same for the same purpose. It has further denied that the newly constructed shop of M. Ramanna (the other landlord) is being used both for godown and business purpose. Even otherwise, the accommodation available in the newly constructed shop is not sufficient for its business, muchless for making use of it as a godown. The tenant lias further pleaded that it would suffer greater hardship if an order of eviction is passed against it. Even otherwise, the accommodation available in the newly constructed shop is not sufficient for its business, muchless for making use of it as a godown. The tenant lias further pleaded that it would suffer greater hardship if an order of eviction is passed against it. ( 5 ) ON the above pleadings, the parties went to trial. Considerable evidence is letin by the parties. On a consideration of the same, the trial Court has rejected the landlord's claim on both the grounds. The correctness and legality of the said order is challenged in this revision. ( 6 ) AS can be seen from the landlord's pleading, the requirement originally pleaded by the landlord was for starling a business. During the pendency of the proceedings, the landlord completed his M. B. B. S. course and was undergoing house Surgeoncy. On acquiring this qualification, he amended the petition to stale that the premises is required by him for selling up his medical practice therein. The learned trial Judge has referred lo the inconsistency in the claim putforlh originally and as amended subsequent to his acquisition of medical qualification. Taking into consideration his affluent circumstances, the learned trial Judge has opined that the landlord may be interested only in prosecuting further studies and not to start a business. Further, having regard to the location of the premises, the trial Court has found that the same cannot possibly be used for setting up a clinic and, as such, the landlord's claim was held to be neither bona fide nor reasonable. It is not disputed that the premises is situated on a narrow road of ten feet width in a business locality where no vehicles can move about. The premises is bounded on one side by a barber's shop and on the other side by a wine shop and a lavatory attached to a hotel. Having regard to his high qualification, viz. , acquisition of a Master's Degree in medicines, it is difficult to conceive that the landlord could set up practice consistent with such qualification in such a locality. However, I am unable to agree with the trial Court's observations that since his father-in-law is staying in America, the landlord is also eager to find a permanent job in that country rather than opening a clinic in the premises. However, I am unable to agree with the trial Court's observations that since his father-in-law is staying in America, the landlord is also eager to find a permanent job in that country rather than opening a clinic in the premises. The landlord's brother and Power of Attorney holder who is examined as P. W.-l has admitted that two similar shops on the same road belonging to the landlord having become vacant during the pendency of the proceedings, were leased out to Hotel Elite. It is further admitted by the witness that the said shop premises were got vacated through Court on the alleged ground of bona fide requirement. In view of the findings, which are based upon admitted and established facts, the trial Court was right in rejecting the landlord's claim for eviction on the first ground. ( 7 ) THIS takes me to the landlord's claim for eviction of the tenant on the ground under clause (p) of Section 21 (1) of the Act. When a claim for eviction is made by a landlord against the tenant on the ground under clause (p), what is required to be established is that the tenant in occupation of the premises has, before or after the coming into operation of Part- V of the Act, built or acquired a building which is suitable for the purpose for which the tenanted building is being used. As held by this Court, the basic idea behind Section 21 (1) (p) of the Act is to withdraw the protection afforded by the Act against a tenant from eviction if he has secured an alternative suitable premises, suited for his purpose, so that, the tenanted premises is available for other needy persons. ( 8 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the landlord is that the tenant having built/acquired additional accommodation measuring three times the area of the shop originally held on lease by it, it is not entitled to continue in occupation of the petition schedule premises. ( 8 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the landlord is that the tenant having built/acquired additional accommodation measuring three times the area of the shop originally held on lease by it, it is not entitled to continue in occupation of the petition schedule premises. On the other hand, it is vehemently contended by Sri sathyanarayana Shelly, learned counsel for the tenant, that the construction of the new building and acquisition of a larger area in another building under lease to it docs not necessarily constitute a ground under clause (p) of Section 21 (1) of the Act, so as to afford a cause of action to the landlord to seek the tenant's eviction. ( 9 ) THE question that arises for consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tenant having built additional accommodation in place of the old structure under lease to it, would attract the provisions of clause (p) of Section 21 (1) of the Act. ( 10 ) "building" is defined under clause (a) to Section 3 of the Act, which reads asunder: "building" means any building or hut or part of a building or hut other than a farm house, let or to be let separately for residential or non-residential purposes and includes xx xx xx. ( 11 ) THE word 'building' in clause (p) refers to a building 'let or to be letseparately' for either of the two purposes, viz. , residential or non-residential purposes. It is further clear that the words 'any building let' also refers to a building which was the subject-matter of a lease and continued to remain in the occupation of a tenant The use of the words 'built, acquired or allotted' in the clause is intended to cover different modes under which the tenant may secure suitable building, which includes part of a building. It seems to me that the words "to be let separately" would also indicate part of a newly constructed building which could be let separately but which is already in the occupation of the tenant along with the remaining building. The object underlying the clause :s to prevent a tenant who builds or acquires a suitable build ing from continuing to occupy another tenanted premises. The object underlying the clause :s to prevent a tenant who builds or acquires a suitable build ing from continuing to occupy another tenanted premises. It is not open for such a tenant to avoid his liability for eviction from the premises even if he establishes that the building so built or acquired by him, which could have been put to use for which the tenanted premises is used, but in fact not put to such use or was not intended to put to such use (see ILR 1985 (3) Kar. 2233 ). ( 12 ) ADMITTEDLY, apart from the petition schedule premises, the tenant, which is a well known concern, was holding on lease another property bearing No. 37, kempegowda Circle, Bangalore, in which they were carrying on sale of their products. Admittedly, the said premises originally comprised only of a ground floor. It is further not disputed that, during the pendency of the proceedings, the old premises was demolished and a new building comprising of a basement, ground floor and first floor was constructed thereon. The entire new building is in the occupation of the tenant. There is adequate evidence on record regarding the nature of the new construction and Ihe accommodation available therein. In this regard, apart from the evidence of the parties themselves, we have the Commissioner's report as also a plan of the building produced by the tenant and marked as Ex. R-41. The Commissioner's report has been accepted by both the parties. It is admitted in the evidence of the tenant that the petition schedule premises measures about 10' x 15'. He also admits that another shop belonging to the landlord's elder brother was demolished and reconstructed at the cost of the Company in accordance with the plan Ex. R-41, in the year 1980. Before reconstruction, the area of the shop was 450 square feet with a height of 30'. The newbuilding comprises of the basement, ground floor and the first floor. While the cellar portion measures 13' x 23', the ground floor and the first floor measures 13' x 21' each. The total accommodation thus available to the tenant is 825 square feet The rent for the old building was Rs. 350/- per month, and after reconstruction, it is increased to Rs. 1,000/- per month for the first five years, with an escalation clause for the subsequent periods. The total accommodation thus available to the tenant is 825 square feet The rent for the old building was Rs. 350/- per month, and after reconstruction, it is increased to Rs. 1,000/- per month for the first five years, with an escalation clause for the subsequent periods. It is further admitted that the cellar portion is being used as a godown, while the ground floor and first floor are used as show room and sales section. ( 13 ) IT is not the case of the tenant that the newly constructed building in which it is now carrying on the business is not suitable for the purpose for which the petition premises is being used. Admittedly, the basement portion of the new building is used for storing or godown purposes. However, the case of Ihe tenant appears to be that in viewof its increasing business, requiring additional accommodation for the said purpose, it is not possible to vacate the petition premises. The learned trial Judge seems to proceed on the premise that since it is not the landlord's case that the additional construction put up by the tenant is mainly used for the alleged purpose of locating its godown, the alleged ground is not available to him for eviction. He has further held that although the entire new premises is being used by the tenant for his business, the petition premises being very convenient and economical as a godown, clause (p) is not attracted so as to entitle the landlord to seek the tenant's eviction on that ground. It seems to me that this approach of the learned trial Judge is wholly erroneous and not consistent with the object of the provision. It is abundantly clear from a perusal of clause (p) that the suitability of the building built, acquired or allotted necessarily has reference to the premises in the occupation of the tenant and has no nexus or relevance lo his further requirement on account of increase in the volume of his business, as in the instant case. Admittedly, part of the building wbich constitutes the basement is suitable for locating a godown and in fact serves the purpose for which the premises had been taken on lease. In the circumstances, the landlord is entitled to succeed on this ground. ( 14 ) IN the result, the civil revision petition is partly allowed. Admittedly, part of the building wbich constitutes the basement is suitable for locating a godown and in fact serves the purpose for which the premises had been taken on lease. In the circumstances, the landlord is entitled to succeed on this ground. ( 14 ) IN the result, the civil revision petition is partly allowed. While affirming thetrial Court's order on the ground clause (h) of Section 21 (1) of the Act, the order rejecting the landlord's claim for eviction of the tenant on tbc ground under clause (p) of Section 21 (1) of the Act is set aside. The landlord's petition is allowed on the ground under Section 21 (1 ) (p) of the Act under which the tenant is dirccled to vacate the premises. In the circumstances of the case, the tenant is granted six months time from today to vacate the premises. --- *** --- .