M. B. VISHWANATH, J. ( 1 ) THESE two revision petitions arise out of the order passed by the learned Additional Small Causes Judge (H. R. C.), Bangalore, on 12-10-1992 in House Rent Control No. 546 of 1986. House rent Control No. 546 of 1986 was filed by petitioner B. Ramachandra Rao (by L. Rs.) against respondent-tenant H. K. Ramakrishna lyengar under Section 21 (1) (b), (c), (d), (h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The petitioner has prayed that the respondent should be evicted from premises Nos. 1676 and 1636 (two shops) and the shed bearing premises No. 1635 situated at Rajajinagar II Stage, Bangalore. Each shop measures 9' x 14' and the shed measures 18' x 14'. ( 2 ) THE learned H. R. C. Judge dismissed the landlord's petition under Section 21 (1) (b), (c), and (p) of the Karnataka Rent control Act. The learned Judge allowed in part the petition under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The learned Judge has ordered directing the respondent-tenant to give vacant possession of one shop which situated by the side of the provision stores. He permitted the respondent-tenant to retain the other shop which is situated adjacent to the shop. ( 3 ) THE learned Judge has further ordered that after recovering the possession of one shop, the legal representatives of the landlord may close the door between the two shops (petition schedule shops ). ( 4 ) THE learned Judge does not clearly say whether he allowed or rejected the petition in respect of the shed measuring 18' x 14' (premises No. 1635 ). It is obvious from the nature of the order passed by the learned Judge that he has rejected the eviction petition in respect of the shed. Further, the learned Judge does not clearly say what he did with the ground under Section 21 (1) (d) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. It is obvious that he has rejected the ground under Section 21 (1) (d ). ( 5 ) IN this Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioners-landlords did not press the petition under Section 21 (1) (b), (c) and (d) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. He sumitted that he would confine himself to grounds under section 21 (1) (h) and (p) of the Act. ( 5 ) IN this Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioners-landlords did not press the petition under Section 21 (1) (b), (c) and (d) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. He sumitted that he would confine himself to grounds under section 21 (1) (h) and (p) of the Act. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the learned House Rent Control Judge, the legal representatives of the petitioner- landlord have filed H. R. R. P. No. 15 of 1993 praying that the eviction petition should be allowed in toto on the grounds under section 21 (1) (h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. ( 7 ) THE respondent-tenant has filed H. R. R. P. No. 9 of 1993 praying that the impugned order passed by the House Rent control Judge allowing the petition partially under Section 21 (1) (h) and ordering eviction in respect of one shop should be set aside. ( 8 ) THE original petition under Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act was filed by the two petitioners, B. Ramachandra rao and his son Babu (second petitioner ). ( 9 ) B. Ramachandra Rao, who was the first petitioner, died during the pendency of the eviction petition. His five legal representatives have been brought on record. Out of these five legal representatives, Babu, who was the second petitioner in the original eviction petition, is the second legal representative. ( 10 ) AS I have already stated, the petition has been filed under Section 21 (1) (b), (c), (d), (h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent control Act and the learned H. R. C. Judge ordered partial eviction under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act. ( 11 ) THE petitioners' case is:the respondent is the tenant in respect of the petition schedule two shops and a shed. The second petitioner (Babu) has studied up to P. U. C. and is unemployed. The second petitioner wants to run a general and provision stores in the petition schedule two shops and the shed. He has necessary experience and funds. The tenant has acquired suitable shop premises bearing No. 1489/1, Mariyappanapalya Main Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The respondent-tenant has purchased a huge property in rajajinagar II Stage, 8th Main, Bangalore. The respondenttenant has also filed an eviction petition against his tenant. He has necessary experience and funds. The tenant has acquired suitable shop premises bearing No. 1489/1, Mariyappanapalya Main Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The respondent-tenant has purchased a huge property in rajajinagar II Stage, 8th Main, Bangalore. The respondenttenant has also filed an eviction petition against his tenant. The respondent-tenant has acquired another suitable shop from one s. Krishnan in the name of his wife H. R. Sujaya at No. 1489, mahakavi Kuvempu Rasthe, Prakashanagar. So he is liable to be evicted under Section 21 (1) (p) also. The landlords require the petition schedule premises reasonably and bona fide for the use and occupation of the second petitioner-landlord (Babu) to start his own business. The petitioners-landlords would be put to greater hardship if eviction is not ordered. ( 12 ) IN the objection statement to the eviction petition, the respondent-tenant has contended that it is not true that Babu requires the petition schedule premises to start his own business. It is not true that the property which the respondent-tenant has purchased is huge and it is suitable for the business of the respondent-tenant. It is not true that the tenant has acquired another shop premises in the name of his wife. It is not true that the tenant has acquired suitable alternative accommodation. ( 13 ) ON behalf of the landlords, four witnesses were examined. P. W. 1-Babu is the second petitioner and the landlord for whose requirement the petition was filed. ( 14 ) R. W. 1 is the tenant. The tenant has got himself examined and closed his case. ( 15 ) THE House Rent Control Judge has dismissed the petitionon the ground under Section 21 (1) (p) viz. , the respondent-tenant has since acquired suitable building. ( 16 ) AT the outset it should be mentioned that on behalf of thelandlords, a sale deed said to have been executed by one neelakantaiah in favour of the respondent-tenant dated 6-1-1990 was sought to be marked. It is the case of the landlords that the tenant has purchased the building in the II Stage, rajajinagar, Bangalore, which is suitable for his business. The learned H. R. C. Judge did not allow the certified copy of this sale deed to be marked on the ground that the certified copy of the sale deed was not a public document. The learned H. R. C. Judge did not allow the certified copy of this sale deed to be marked on the ground that the certified copy of the sale deed was not a public document. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners-landlords that the learned H. R. C. Judge has committed a serious mistake in law in not allowing the certified copy to be marked. Obviously the learned Judge is not aware of Section 74 (2) of the Evidence Act which says that public records of private documents kept in any state are also public documents, ( 17 ) THE matter need not be remanded on the ground that thesale deed was not allowed to be marked because there is enough material excluding the sale deed dated 6-1-1990 to support the conclusion of the learned Judge in not allowing the petition under Section 21 (1) (p) and also because this is a 1986 matter. Moreover the final order passed by the learned H. R. C. Judge is reasonable, just and proper. ( 18 ) ANYWAY it is open to the landlords to file a fresh petitionunder Section 21 (1) (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act on the ground that the tenant has since acquired a suitable premises on the strength of the building purchased from one Neelakantaiah on 6-1-1990. ( 19 ) P. W. 3-Krishnan has stated in his evidence that Sujaya,wife of the respondent-tenant is his tenant and was running a bakery shop. Now the bakery shop is closed and there is an agency called Gas Agency. The learned Judge, with whom I agree, has stated in his order that the said shop premises of p. W. 3 was taken on lease by Sujaya, wife of the respondent-tenant, when the respondent also took the petition schedule premises on lease from the deceased landlord, ramachandra Rao, and therefore it cannot be said that the respondent has acquired the shop premises after acquisition of petition schedule premises. ( 20 ) REGARDING the building owned by the respondent, it ismostly residential in character. ( 21 ) IN view of the circumstances discussed by the learnedh. R. C. Judge, I agree with him. There is no other evidence to hold in favour of the petitioners-landlords and to differ from the h. R. C. Judge regarding the ground under Section 21 (1) (p ). ( 21 ) IN view of the circumstances discussed by the learnedh. R. C. Judge, I agree with him. There is no other evidence to hold in favour of the petitioners-landlords and to differ from the h. R. C. Judge regarding the ground under Section 21 (1) (p ). ( 22 ) NOW I take up the ground under Section 21 (1) (h) of thekarnataka Rent Control Act in respect of which the learned h. R. C. Judge has ordered partial eviction. ( 23 ) IT is the case of the petitioners-landlords that the secondpetitioner (P. W. 1-Babu) is unemployed and the petition premises are required reasonably and bona fide for him to start his own business. P. W. 2 wants to supplement the income of the family. The first petitioner-landlord Ramachandra Rao (since deceased) was a retired Government Official on the date of the petition. His family consisted of two sons, wife and three daughters. In view of this State of affairs, the learned H. R. C. Judge has stated that if P. W. 2 who is unemployed requires the premises to start his own business to supplement the income, it cannot be said that the requirement is not bona fide and unreasonable. P. W. 1-Babu is the eldest son of the family. It is in evidence that he was working temporarily as a stenographer in an Engineering College. It was purely temporary and P. W. 1- babu resigned. He has been relieved with effect from 9-12-1985. This clearly establishes that on the date of the eviction petition, p. W. 1 was unemployed. ( 24 ) IT is in evidence that some other shop belonging to thepetitioners-landlords became vacant in 1980 and P. W. 1 did not occupy it. P. W. 1 became unemployed only in 1985. So it cannot be said that there is no bona fide and reasonableness in the claim of P. W. 1 that he wants to start his own business. ( 25 ) THE learned H. R. C. Judge has believed the evidence thatthe petitioners-landlords are going to take loans from the Banks or Co-operative Societies to start their business. ( 26 ) I agree with the finding of the learned Trial Judge thatthe requirement of the petitioners-landlords is reasonable and bona fide. ( 27 ) I further agree with the finding of the learned Trial Judgethat only partial eviction should be ordered. ( 26 ) I agree with the finding of the learned Trial Judge thatthe requirement of the petitioners-landlords is reasonable and bona fide. ( 27 ) I further agree with the finding of the learned Trial Judgethat only partial eviction should be ordered. ( 28 ) THE learned Trial Judge has come to the conclusion thatmore hardship would be caused to the petitioners-landlords if an order of eviction is not granted. In the same breath, rightly, he has come to the conclusion that if eviction is ordered in respect of both the petition schedule shops and the shed, the tenant also will be put to great hardship. ( 29 ) TAKING into consideration that there is a door between thetwo shops and that the two shops could be conveniently partitioned, he has held that if eviction is ordered in respect of one shop and the tenant is allowed to have the other shop with the shed to manufacture and sell bakery products, no hardship would be caused to both the parties. ( 30 ) IT has been laid down by this Court in M. K. Narayanappav Geetha Stores, which arose under the Karnataka Rent Control act that. "when the Trial Court which had the benefit of watching the demeanour of the witnesses and applying the correct legal principles, holds in favour of the landlord, an appellate or revisional "court should be slow to interfere with such a finding". ( 31 ) IN Phiroze Bamanji Desai v Chandrakant M. Patel andothers, which arose under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, it has been laid down that the high Court can interfere with the decision of the lower Court only if there is miscarriage of justice due to mistake of law. The supreme Court has been pleased to further lay down that the high Court cannot reassess the value of evidence and interfere with a finding of fact. ( 32 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent-tenant showed mesome portion of the evidence and submitted that the eviction petition should have been dismissed in toto. ( 33 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners-landlords, asagainst this submission, took me through some evidence and submitted that the eviction petition should have been allowed in toto. ( 34 ) SUFFICE it to say that the conclusion reached by the learnedh. R. C. Judge is neither perverse nor illegal. ( 33 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners-landlords, asagainst this submission, took me through some evidence and submitted that the eviction petition should have been allowed in toto. ( 34 ) SUFFICE it to say that the conclusion reached by the learnedh. R. C. Judge is neither perverse nor illegal. The view taken by the Trial Judge is eminently reasonable. ( 35 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following order:both the petitions H. R. R. P. No. 9 of 1993 and H. R. R. P. No. 15 of 1993 are dismissed. Each party to bear his own costs. --- *** --- .