A. J. SADASHIVA, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH, this petition is listed for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on both the sides, as the respondents have entered caveat. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has presented this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and order dated 5th december, 1995 passed by the learned i additional district judge, dharwad, sitting at hubli in revision (rent) No. 38 of 1994, dismissing the revision petition and affirming the order dated 30th march, 1994, passed by the principal munsiff, hubli in h. r. c. No. 209 of 1980, directing the eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule premises under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the act' ). ( 3 ) THE petitioner is a tenant under deceased respondent in respect of the petition schedule premises. Respondent filed a petition under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act, for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the petition schedule premises is bona fide and reasonably required for their personal use and occupation. It was statet. By the first respondent that he was an asthmatic patient and he needs constant treatment and all his children are young, studying in different colleges of hubli and therefore he required the premises for his occupation. The petitioner having entered appearance, filed her objections. The trial court, dismissed the petition. The learned district judge allowed the revision filed by the legal representatives of respondent and directed the eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a revision petition before this court in c. r. p. No. 4448 of 1988. This court allowed the revision petition and remanded the matter to the court of first instance for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in terms of the directions which reads as under:". . . The petitioner filed a revision petition before this court in c. r. p. No. 4448 of 1988. This court allowed the revision petition and remanded the matter to the court of first instance for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in terms of the directions which reads as under:". . . Though the two factual bases set out in the petition in support of the plea for bona fide use and occupation became non-existent on account of the delay in the disposal of the case, the Justice of the case demands that the subsequent events which have taken place during the pendency of this proceeding namely the securing of employment of respondents 2 and 6 at hubli could be relied on by the respondents for praying for grant of an order of eviction under Section 21 (l) (h) of the act and therefore they should be given an opportunity to prove their case on the said basis". ( 4 ) THAT, after remand, the respondent-landlord amended his pleadings and the petitioner tenant filed additional objections and both of them produced evidence in respect of their cases. The learned trial judge, after appreciating the evidence has held that the respondents have established their need for the petition scheduled premises. It was further held that the requirement of the respondents is bona fide and reasonable. The trial court has also recorded a finding that the respondents would suffer greater hardship than the petitioner, if an order of eviction is refused and in view of the existing accommodation, partial eviction is not possible. Accordingly, the learned munsiff granted a decree in favour of the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner filed a revision in the court of the learned district judge. The i additional district judge, dharwad, sitting at hubli, dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order of the learned munsiff on all points. Hence, this petition. ( 5 ) IT is well-settled that this court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, c. p. c. , would not reappreciate the evidence to come to its own conclusion, even though the finding on fact recorded by the courts below is erroneous. This court would interfere with the orders under revision, only in case of an error of jurisdiction or exercise of such jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity resulting in substantial injury. This court would interfere with the orders under revision, only in case of an error of jurisdiction or exercise of such jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity resulting in substantial injury. ( 6 ) SRI d. s. hosamath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid proposition. However, he contends that the courts below have committed an illegality in exercising their jurisdiction in not considering the evidence of the petitioner in its proper perspective and not drawing adverse inference for non-examination of respondent 1-a and respondent 1-e. ( 7 ) AFTER perusing the Order, I am not able to persuade myself to agree with the contention of Sri d. s. hosamath, that, the learned munsiff has failed to consider the evidence of the petitioner. It is apparent from the order of the learned munsiff that the material evidence produced by both the parties has in fact been considered and a finding has been recorded. It is on record that respondent 1-b has been working as a supervisor under a civil contractor at hubli and he intends to start his own contract work after gaining sufficient experience. It is also not in dispute that respondent 1-f is an employee of Karnataka state finance corporation at hubli. It is undisputed that all the legal representatives of the respondent are living in hubli in a rented premises. The petitioner herself has admitted in clear terms that the legal representatives of the respondent are living at hubli in a rented premises. There is also evidence on record that respondent 1-d has completed his education in law and intends to start practice at hubli and respondent 1-e completed her masters degree in social welfare and intends to settle down at hubli in view of hubli becoming an industrial town. The petitioner has not challenged the correctness of this evidence during the cross-examination of p. ws. 2 and 3. P. w. 4 is a managing director of the engineering firm in which P. W. 2 has been working as a supervisor. In addition to that, respondent 1-g, the mother of respondent 1-a to f is an old lady and her leg has been amputated and she needs constant medical treatment. All the respondents are the residents of a village near mundaragi, where medical facilities are not available. In addition to that, respondent 1-g, the mother of respondent 1-a to f is an old lady and her leg has been amputated and she needs constant medical treatment. All the respondents are the residents of a village near mundaragi, where medical facilities are not available. The learned munsiff has taken the aforesaid facts into account, in view of the evidence by p. ws. 2 to 4 and r. w. 1, the petitioner herein. The courts have not placed much reliance on the submission made by the petitioner during her cross-examination both in respect of the need of the respondents as well as the partial eviction and the relative hardship. In these circumstances, it is not possible to agree with the contention of Sri d. s. hosamath, that the courts below did not consider the evidence of the petitioner and therefore they exercise their jurisdiction illegally resulting in substantial injury to the petitioner. ( 8 ) SRI d. s. hosamath, next contends that, in view of the petition schedule property being the property of the joint family, the manager of the joint family would have been the best person to prove the need of the family. Respondent 1-a since admittedly being the eldest son of the deceased respondent should have been examined, both in respect of his need and that of the family. It is his further contention that on account of non-examination of respondents 1-a and g, adverse inference should have been drawn against their need. It must be remembered that the order of eviction has not been made solely on the ground of need of either respondent 1-a or respondent 1-g. The eviction order has been made on the basis of the need of the family, particularly that of respondent 1-b and 1-f. It is not in dispute that all the respondents are living at hubli in a rented premises and they do not own or possess any other premises at hubli. Respondent 1-b has been working as a supervisor with an engineering contractor. Respondent 1-f has been working in Karnataka state finance corporation. Respondent 1-d has completed his education in law and intends to practice at hubli. Respondent 1-e is a masters degree holder in social welfare and she is also living in hubli. Respondent 1-b has been working as a supervisor with an engineering contractor. Respondent 1-f has been working in Karnataka state finance corporation. Respondent 1-d has completed his education in law and intends to practice at hubli. Respondent 1-e is a masters degree holder in social welfare and she is also living in hubli. When the respondents are living in a rented premises at hubli and if they require their own premises for their personal use and occupation, it is too much to contend that there is no element of need in their requirement and it is only a desire. The non- examination of respondent 1-a and respondent 1-g has also not in any way affected the case of the petitioner prejudicially. Even, if respondent 1-a would not leave Bangalore to reside at hubli, it is not possible to hold that the requirement of other respondents is illusory or a mere desire. The courts below after having considered all the relevant materials have recorded a finding that the owners-respondents have established their bona fide and reasonable requirement of the petition schedule premises for their personal use and occupation. The petitioner is not able to point out any legal flaw in recording such finding by the courts below. I am also not able to find out any reason to disagree with the finding recorded by the courts below on the issue relating to the need of the owners for the scheduled premises. ( 9 ) THE courts below have also considered the evidence of the petitioner that at hubli there are many new extensions, wherein new constructions are coming up, and for the last 15 years she did not make any attempt to secure any alternate accommodation. The courts have also held that the petitioner will have to pay more rent to secure an alternate accommodation and that is not sufficient to hold that she would suffer greater hardship, if the order of eviction is made in favour of the respondents. On the other hand, the courts have further held that the respondents would suffer greater hardship, if the order of eviction is refused thereby depriving them of their right to occupy their own premises. ( 10 ) IT is admitted that the petition schedule premises consists of four rooms including kitchen, one bedroom, drawing room and hall. On the other hand, the courts have further held that the respondents would suffer greater hardship, if the order of eviction is refused thereby depriving them of their right to occupy their own premises. ( 10 ) IT is admitted that the petition schedule premises consists of four rooms including kitchen, one bedroom, drawing room and hall. In this view of the matter, the courts below have held that partial eviction is not feasible. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not bring any material point to my notice to differ from the finding recorded by the courts below on these two points. In the result, this petition fails and accordingly rejected. However, the petitioner is given 6 months time from today to vacate and deliver the vacant premises subject to the payment of rents as and when it falls due. --- *** --- .