H. N. NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order of eviction dated 6-3-1990 passed in hrc No. 10471 of 1985 on the file of the additional small causes judge, mayohall, Bangalore, allowing the petition in part and granting eviction under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Rent Control Act ('act' for short ). ( 2 ) THE respondent herein is admittedly the owner of the petition premises which is a residential premises. The same was gifted to her by her mother which in fact, is not in dispute. The premises is a part of a residential building which is the first floor. The ground floor of the said building was gifted to the respondent's sister by her mother. The respondent is a lady who acquired the citizenship of singapore along with her husband who was employed there. It is her case that her husband retired from the service in the year 1984. Therefore, they came back to india. They have got a son who is mentally retarded. They stayed for some time in Madras for medical treatment of their son. 'since they decided to settle in india, they requested the petitioner herein who is the tenant of the premises to vacate and deliver vacant portion as they require the same for the bona fide use and occupation, which request was not complied. According to the respondent she had no other premises anywhere in india. Hence, she filed a petition for eviction mainly on the ground of bona fide use and occupation. ( 3 ) THE petition was resisted by the tenant-petitioner on the ground the respondent being a citizen of singapore cannot stay in India unless she acquires Indian citizenship. Her sister has already sold the ground floor of the premises. The respondent and her husband have no intention of staying in india. Therefore, there are no bona fides in the requirement. even otherwise, great hardship would be caused to the family of the tenant if an order of eviction is passed. It is upon these grounds, the tenant requested the court to dismiss the petition. ( 4 ) IN proof of the respective contentions, parties got themselves examined in the trial court and produced certain documents. even otherwise, great hardship would be caused to the family of the tenant if an order of eviction is passed. It is upon these grounds, the tenant requested the court to dismiss the petition. ( 4 ) IN proof of the respective contentions, parties got themselves examined in the trial court and produced certain documents. The trial court, having regard to the evidence on record, has allowed the petition in part and passed an order of eviction under the Provisions of section 21 (1) (h) of the act. The petition under Section 21 (1) (a) is rejected. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of eviction passed by the trial court, the tenant has preferred this revision. This court, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, was of the opinion that the trial court has not considered the question of possibility of partial eviction under Section 21 (4) of the act and therefore, directed the trial court to record a finding on that question. The trial court after holding further enquiry in the matter submitted a finding in favour of the landlady-respondent holding that there is no possibility of partial eviction. ( 6 ) I have heard Sri u. s. narayan rao, learned senior counsel for the tenant-petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent-landlady has justified the impugned order. I have perused the records. ( 7 ) TWO important contentions are raised by Sri u. l. narayan rao for the petitioner. His first contention is that there is a bar for the landlady to seek an order of eviction and get the premises as she is not a citizen of this country and she is still a citizen of singapore. According to him, Section 5 of the Indian citizenship act of 1955 and Rule 16 (a) of the said act are a bar for seeking such eviction. Therefore, according to him, she could not have sought an order of eviction. The learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions: (1)A. K. mukherji v prodip ranjan sarbadhikary; and (2) abdus samad v state of West Bengal. ( 8 ) THE question for consideration is whether the order of eviction passed by the trial court is not justifiable having regard to the contentions raised in this revision. ( 9 ) THERE is no dispute that the respondent was a resident and citizen of singapore. ( 8 ) THE question for consideration is whether the order of eviction passed by the trial court is not justifiable having regard to the contentions raised in this revision. ( 9 ) THERE is no dispute that the respondent was a resident and citizen of singapore. Her husband was employed at singapore. The respondent, husband and her son stayed at singapore till 1984. It is her say that after retirement of her husband, they left singapore, came back to india and now she has applied for an Indian citizenship. They stayed for sometime at Madras for treatment of their mentally retarded son and she has an intention to settle in Bangalore in the petition premises. Her request to vacate the premises had been turned down by the tenant. hence, she was compelled to file h. r. c. ( 10 ) SUGGESTIONS were made to the respondent in the cross examination to the effect that she has no intention of coming back to india, which has been denied. According to the landlady, they have sold all their articles at singapore and have come down to india. ( 11 ) THERE are certain restrictions to obtain Indian citizenship as provided under Section 5 of the Indian citizenship act of 1955 and rules thereunder (rule 16-a ). The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant drew my attention to the Provisions of the foreign exchange regulation act of 1973 which provides prior permission of the reserve bank of India to bring the property from an alien land to this country. If it is found that an Indian who was residing elsewhere outside india, intends to come back to india, the law of the land will take care of itself. The question is whether there are bona fides in the requirement of the petition premises. The Calcutta high court in the case cited supra, has ruled out any such bar for an alien to seek an order of eviction of a tenant for personal use and occupation. In the absence of contra decision on this question, Mr. Narayan rao, learned counsel for the petitioner tenant, has clearly submitted that he cannot effectively urge his first contention in the matter. I am in respectful agreement with the decision rendered by the Calcutta high court on this question. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel is rejected. In the absence of contra decision on this question, Mr. Narayan rao, learned counsel for the petitioner tenant, has clearly submitted that he cannot effectively urge his first contention in the matter. I am in respectful agreement with the decision rendered by the Calcutta high court on this question. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel is rejected. ( 12 ) THE decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner cited supra, in my opinion, is also not applicable to the facts of this case. That is a case of change of domicile by a pakistani. On facts it was held that the petitioner before the supreme court had failed to prove his domicile in india. However, the facts of this case that the respondent-landlady has come out to india, she has applied for Indian citizenship and that takes some years for the central government to grant the Indian citizenship are not disputed. There is nothing on record to say that the landlady is not a citizen of this country at some point of time. In fact, the material on record clearly shows that the respondent's mother was a resident of india. She held some property in Bangalore and that she gifted the same in favour of her two daughters wherein one of the daughters is the landlady who was staying in singapore along with her husband. This very fact presupposes that the landlady must have born in India and an Indian before she acquired an alien citizenship at singapore. ( 13 ) SINCE there is no bar for an alien like the respondent to seek an order of eviction, court is required to examine whether the requirement is genuine and whether there is bona fide need to occupy her own premises. ( 14 ) IT is an undisputed fact that the respondent has got a son who is mentally retarded. They have no other place or accommodation to stay elsewhere. They are temporarily now staying in a rented premises at Madras. This say of the landlady has not been seriously assailed. nothing is brought out in the cross-examination to discredit this claim of the landlady. Therefore, i find that the respondent has proved her bona fide requirement. The second aspect of the matter is whether an order of eviction would cause great hardship to the tenant. This say of the landlady has not been seriously assailed. nothing is brought out in the cross-examination to discredit this claim of the landlady. Therefore, i find that the respondent has proved her bona fide requirement. The second aspect of the matter is whether an order of eviction would cause great hardship to the tenant. It is now settled that in all cases of eviction a tenant is bound to suffer some hardship or the other like shifting from one place to another, paying some higher rent and advance etc. But, that is inevitable in all cases of evictions. respondent has no other property of her own in india. She has made her intention to stay in Bangalore at this old age with her mentally retarded son and aged husband. To ask her to stay elsewhere in a rented premises is virtually denying her right to stay in her own house. In fact, the object of the Rent Control Act is to balance the needs of the landlords and the tenants. The trial court has now given a finding that the question of partial eviction is ruled out in this case. The premises consists of two bedrooms, dining room, kitchen and a store room. The landlady has to accommodate her son in one room and she has to accommodate herself in the other room. There is no extra accommodation to accommodate the tenant in the same premises as there is only a small kitchen and the dining room left over. Therefore, the trial court has rightly held that the respondent is really entitled to an order of eviction. I, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of eviction passed by the trial court. Revision petition, therefore, fails and it is dismissed. However, the tenant is directed to vacate and deliver vacant possession on or before the end of March 1998. --- *** --- .