B. K. SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 2-1-1991 passed in House Rent Case No. 10269 of 1989 evicting the petitioner from the premises giving three months' time. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the owner of the petition schedule premises. In House Rent Control petition both husband and his wife Mrs. Hemalatha Zahad filed petition under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act stating that the petition premises in which they were residing were not sufficient to give sufficient accommodation for four children who are studying and for accommodating aged parents who are now residing in Mysore. The respondent-M. S. Zahad is a technically skilled person occupying a very coveted position in h. M. T. Division as Deputy General Manager. Since he is in the field of export, it is alleged that the petition premises is required to entertain the foreign customers and dignitaries required for the business of the factory. In the event of refusing eviction, he would be put to great hardship, on the other hand the petitioner-tenant has taken up a contention that he was coerced for the enhancement rent of Rs. 600/- p. m. and higher advance of rs. 10,000/ -. The present accommodation available for the landlord is sufficient. As such no additional accommodation is required. There were police complaints by the landlord. As such the relationship has been strained and this petition is only a coercive measure to evict him. According to the tenant, three bed-rooms are available for the landlord and their parents are not living in Bangalore. Hence neither additional accommodation is required nor any hardship would be caused to the landlord. On the other hand in the event of eviction, the tenant would be put to greater hardship. ( 2 ) FOR the landlord, himself is examined and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-13 and for the tenant, himself is examined and Ex. R-1 is marked. ( 3 ) AFTER the closure of the evidence, the learned IV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, has recorded findings in favour of the landlord and has passed the impugned order evicting the tenant granting three months' time. Being aggrieved by this, this petition arises. ( 4 ) MR. R-1 is marked. ( 3 ) AFTER the closure of the evidence, the learned IV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, has recorded findings in favour of the landlord and has passed the impugned order evicting the tenant granting three months' time. Being aggrieved by this, this petition arises. ( 4 ) MR. M. V. Seshadri, learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously submitted that the present accommodation is quite sufficient, the parents of the landlord are not residing in bangalore. There were complaints against the tenant. As such the relationship is strained. There was coercion of enhancement of rent and to substantiate this he submitted that there was no cross-examination to R. W. 1 on this aspect. As such the petition itself is filed with mala fide intention to get eviction order. He also submitted that it is not necessary to pass an order of eviction only because the landlord is required to entertain his guests in his house. On the other hand Mr. Srivastav, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the Court below stating that the landlord is only interested in getting back the premises. By hard earned money he has purchased this property by the sale deed dated 20th February, 1988. The parents were residing with the landlord till 1982 and when he left for foreign country for some assignment, the parents left for mysore. The present accommodation is not sufficient for the landlord to cater the needs of his family. He has further submitted that the landlord has got four children and two of them are grown up daughters and son and another daughter are young. Each one of them requires a separate accommodation for their studies and to keep their privacy. He has mainly contended that the tenant has not made any efforts to secure either alternative accommodation or a quarters in the I. T. I. factory wherein he is employed. ( 5 ) IN view of these rival contentions, now it is to be seen whether the order of the learned Small Cause Judge is correct or not. It is to be seen whether the bona fide requirement is established. If bona fide requirement is established, then it has to be seen on whose side the balance of hardship shall be tilted. ( 6 ) AS far as ownership of the premises is concerned, there is no dispute. It is to be seen whether the bona fide requirement is established. If bona fide requirement is established, then it has to be seen on whose side the balance of hardship shall be tilted. ( 6 ) AS far as ownership of the premises is concerned, there is no dispute. By virtue of this sale deed dated 20-2-1988 the respondent has become the owner. The petitioner who was the tenant under the previous vendor was given notice of attornment and in lieu of that he continued to pay monthly rents to the respondents. There is no dispute regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant. Now the only question to be seen is whether the accommodation now available is sufficient or not. This Court at one stage after having heard the arguments of both the parties agreed for the appointment of Commissioner. As such the Commissioner was appointed and she submitted her report along with the sketch. This is not disputed. But Mr. Sreevatsa, learned Counsel for respondent submitted that this does not represent the true picture and further submitted even there may be some alterations here and there but the total area would be the same. I do not find any fault with this submission. Now the question would be whether the accommodation available in the ground and first floor is sufficient for the family of the landlord. Now in the upstairs according to the commissioner's report, two bed rooms are available and one hall and another room are also available in addition to kitchen, bathroom and toilet. Similar accommodation is available in the ground floor. Out of this, one hall measuring 10'10" x 7'2", one bed room measuring 10 1/2 " x 5' x 5" and kitchen measuring 6'10" x 4'x 10" and toilet measuring 4' x 10' x 3' is in occupation of the tenant. The family of the landlord consists of himself, his wife and four children and his parents who are residing with him. His whole contention is that his parents are aged and as such they are not in a position to climb the stair-case from the ground floor and as such the ground floor is required to house them. It cannot be stated that the desire is arbitrary but I would like to make it very clear that sufficiency of accommodation cannot be equated with the luxury of space. It cannot be stated that the desire is arbitrary but I would like to make it very clear that sufficiency of accommodation cannot be equated with the luxury of space. In the ground floor one bed room and one hall measuring 10'9 1/2" x 11' 4 1/2 and 14'10" x 9'6 l/2" respectively are also available. In addition to this, a kitchen and bathroom are also available according to the sketch. A family does not require two kitchens and two dining-halls in the day-to-day life. A family which is residing jointly will require one dining-hall and one kitchen. It is not the case of the landlord that the parents are not in good terms with his wife and as such they require separate establishment as well. His plea is that he wants to accommodate his parents. To do so, one kitchen and one dining hall are enough. The other remaining place can be converted into study room. I do not think it would be inconvenient for the landlord to do so. Even he can have little space for servant. So much of the space is available in the ground floor itself. In the upstairs also have two bedrooms, one hall, one kitchen, one bathroom and also a room are available. One master bedroom can be conveniently used by the landlord and his wife and another bedroom is enough for accommodating grown-up daughters. When so much is available, it is un-understandable how the present accommodation would be insufficient for a family consisting of six members. Moreover, there is no evidence on behalf of the landlord to show that his parents are shifting from Mysore to Bangalore. If it was really desired, by this time, they would have come and started staying with the landlord. It is stated that the landlord has married a hindu girl. For this marriage the parents were not agreeable. If this was really true, then the parents of the landlord might not have earnest desire to come and stay against their will. At least if it was desire of the parents either of them should have come to the Court and deposed that they were really interested to come and stay with their son in spite of inter-caste marriage. It is not the case of the landlord in this fashion. Hence under such circumstances, it becomes very difficult to believe the version given by the landlord. It is not the case of the landlord in this fashion. Hence under such circumstances, it becomes very difficult to believe the version given by the landlord. The learned Small Cause Judge has gone beyond the scope of the evidence. He has unnecessarily taken trouble to draw such inferences which are not normally available on the basis of the evidence on the record. Hence in my opinion the available space now in the possession of the landlord is quite sufficient to accommodate landlord's family. ( 7 ) THE learned Small Cause Judge has formed a view that because the tenant has failed to establish that the landlord was coercing the tenant to pay higher rents, the bona fide requirement of the landlord is established. But he himself has observed in the course of his order that there is no cross-examination to R. W. 1 on this aspect. It is made clear in para 10 on page 12 of his order that:"of course there is no cross-examination of R. W. I in this aspect. However, the requirement of the petitioner cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the demand for enhanced rents was made by the petitioner". It is pertinent to note that the Respondent has to stand on his own legs. He cannot throw burden on the other party as it is he who has come to the Court to get eviction against the tenant. It is his duty to establish the bona fide requirement. The learned Small Cause Judge ought to have ventured to observe in this fashion. Admittedly the facts need not be proved. R. W. 1 clearly spoke that he was pressurised for the enhancement of rent and when there is no cross-examination to this effect, it goes to show that there cannot be a smoke without fire. Although it does not cut the root, it is one of the clinching circumstances in favour of the tenant. Of course it has come on the record and also during the course of the arguments it is fought out that the landlord has got one room constructed which is little away from the residential premises but it is a part of the same building wherein the wife of the landlord is carrying on the business. It is seen that the space available in the ground and first floor is quite sufficient for the landlord". It is seen that the space available in the ground and first floor is quite sufficient for the landlord". ( 8 ) ONE of the strong contentions of Mr. Sreevatsa, learned Counsel for the respondent is that the landlord is required to entertain the customers and for which he requires space. This contention cannot be accepted because the landlord is an employee of H. M. T. He is a responsible officer. When he is in charge of the export department, it is the duty of the factory to provide him a space. Normally all big factories arrange parties to entertain foreign dignitaries and guests in five star hotels in bangalore. Since the landlord is not required to pay bill from his pocket, it is not at all necessary for him to invite foreign dignitaries to his residence to entertain them for the purpose of the business. The landlord may have many friends residing in foreign countries. He may be interested also to entertain them when they are here. But it is not below dignity nor does it affect the status of a person if such personal quests are entertained in the house with the space available. It is too much to expect that the guests will frown upon the paucity of the space rather than the warmth, love and affection of the host. But the case of the landlord that he wants to entertain foreign guests, is not a bona fide requirement. Mr. Sreevatsa, learned Counsel for the respondent has also relied upon a decision in the case of Shyam bihari Singh v Smt. Sushila Devi Mittal. In this case it is clear that Section 21 (l) (h) is not applicable. ( 9 ) MR. Sreevatsa, learned Counsel for the respondent also contended that the tenant who is an employee in the I. T. I has never made any efforts to secure quarters. Even assuming that the tenant has not made any efforts to get factory quarters, it cannot be the basis to pass eviction order. Of course the tenant has to look out for alternative accommodation within the means available to him. Even if the employee wants quarters of the factory, he has to apply and he has to wait. Here the landlord has not proved that deliberately the tenant did not make any attempts to get quarters. There is no material also on this aspect. Even if the employee wants quarters of the factory, he has to apply and he has to wait. Here the landlord has not proved that deliberately the tenant did not make any attempts to get quarters. There is no material also on this aspect. The landlord being very high ranked Officer atleast should have summoned the concerned Officers from the I. T. I and could have examined to show that there were ample number of quarters available to accommodate the employees of the cadre like that of the tenant. Such evidence is also lacking. ( 10 ) NO doubt here the landlord has purchased the property with hard earned money. Every landlord has the cherished desire to get back possession of his house. Nevertheless the law demands that he has to establish his bona fide requirement. Unless it is established, the tenant cannot be thrown out just to please the landlord that too in a cosmopolitan city like Bangalore when there is acute shortage of accommodation. When the bona fide requirement itself is not established, it is not necessary to dwell on the point of hardship. Even then it goes without saying, looking to the facts that the hardship would be more to the tenant in the event of eviction in the present case. In the light of these observations, the following order is passed. In the result, the petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. --- *** --- .