H. N. NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) THESE two revisions under Section 50 of the Karnataka rent control Act, 1961 ("the act" for short) are directed agains; the order of eviction granted by the trial judge under the Provisions of Section 21 (1) (h) of the act. ( 2 ) CERTAIN undisputed facts in these two cases are as follows: respondent-landlord is a reputed doctor settled in usa and has acquired citizenship there. He is a son of a doctor. His father is no more. the suit premises which is situated in the prime locality of Bangalore city at sadashivanagar, consists of ground and first floors which is essentially a residential premises. The landlord's father died about ten years back bequeathing the property in his favour. Both the ground and first floors were allotted to the tenants by the re at controller and the petitioners-tenants came to be in possession of these two premises as tenants and they are residing therefor about a decade. The petitioner in hrrp No. 980 of 1998 is a businessman while the other petitioner in hrrp No. 1026 of 1998 is a senior engineer who is running certain industries. The aged mother of the landlord is staying in a portion of the premises belonging to her at malleswaram and the landlord used to stay in his mother's house during his visits to Bangalore. ( 3 ) AT certain point of time, before filing of these petitions, the landlord sent certain notices to the tenants expressing his intention to come back to india, stay in the petition premises to pursue his medical avocation at Bangalore, and subsequently he got issued legal notices expressing his intention to start an institution to spread education regarding aids (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) by starting aids research and treatment centre in the schedule premises. He therefore requested the tenant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises in their occupation. Since they did not comply with the request of the landlord, he got filed eviction petitions through his co-brother who is a resident of Bangalore. It is alleged that he is an estate agent and builder at Bangalore. He therefore requested the tenant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises in their occupation. Since they did not comply with the request of the landlord, he got filed eviction petitions through his co-brother who is a resident of Bangalore. It is alleged that he is an estate agent and builder at Bangalore. In his petitions filed before the rent court, he pleaded that the premises in question are required for opening aids research and treatment centre; he has established himself at usa treating aids for more than fifteen years; he has earned fame and name for his services to humanity and has decided to come back to india, particularly to Bangalore and start his practice in his own premises and therefore, he requires the petition premises for his bona fide use and occupation. He has stated that he has no other alternative house in city of Bangalore to start this center. He has also stated that he has no other premises to start this institution and therefore, if an order of eviction is not granted he would suffer irreparable loss and injury. However, he has not whispered anything about the hardship that would be caused to the tenants if an order of eviction is granted. ( 4 ) BOTH the respondents entered appearance through their respective advocates and filed their respective objections separately disputing the claim of the landlord. These two matters have been clubbed together for the purpose of recording evidence and disposal. The defence set up by the tenants is similar. Therefore, i prefer to record their objections in brief as follows: they have not disputed the relationship. The respondent-landlord is a permanent resident of chicago in usa. These petitions are filed with oblique motives; there was repeated demand for higher rents; the landlord and his mother wanted to sell this property to third persors and therefore there are no bona fides in the requirement of the landlord. children of the landlord have been admitted to various technical courses at usa and they have planned their future in the states itself and have no intention of coming back to India and the fact that he had acquired special knowledge in treating aids is not within their knowledge and therefore, they have disputed the same. children of the landlord have been admitted to various technical courses at usa and they have planned their future in the states itself and have no intention of coming back to India and the fact that he had acquired special knowledge in treating aids is not within their knowledge and therefore, they have disputed the same. Thus they have disputed the very requirement of the landlord to come back to India to start aids research and treatment centre in the petition premises. It is further stated that prior to the filing of the petitions, the landlord approached the petitioners offering them to sell the property; but, he is making arrangement to alienate the property to third parties and the real estate agents are coming near the petition premises. Therefore, the petitions are filed with ulterior motives. They have further put forth their own hardship in the event of an order of eviction. According to them, one of them is running a small business earning only a few lakhs and another is running an industry earning similar amount per annum. Therefore, if an order of eviction is passed, they would be put into great hardship as it has become very difficult for them to get alternative premises and they have to pay exorbitant rents for similar accommodation. ( 5 ) IN order to substantiate the respective contentions, the petitioner, has come down to Bangalore from usa and got himself examined as P. W. 1 and his power of attorney is examined as P. W. 2. They got marked 20 documents in support of their case. The petitioners-tenants got themselves examined as r. ws. 1 and 3 and got marked one notice ex. R-l. ( 6 ) THE learned trial judge upon consideration of the rival contentions and the evidence placed before the court has accepted the case of the landlord by holding that the landlord has proved his requirement which according to him is both bona fide and reasonable and that greater hardship would be caused to him if an order of eviction is refused. the trial court has also made a passing reference to the question of feasibility of partial eviction in question and therefore, allowed both the petitions under the Provisions of Section 21 (1) (h) of the act. ( 7 ) THE tenants have questioned the legality and correctness of this order passed by the trial court -. the trial court has also made a passing reference to the question of feasibility of partial eviction in question and therefore, allowed both the petitions under the Provisions of Section 21 (1) (h) of the act. ( 7 ) THE tenants have questioned the legality and correctness of this order passed by the trial court -. ( 8 ) I have heard the learned senior counsel on both sides and perused the records. Sri V. Tarakaram and Sri s. Shekar shetty appeared for the petitioners and Sri eshwarappa for respondent. Leaned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners-tenants contended that shere is variance in the pleading and the evidence in the requirement of the petitioner and that the requirement placed before the trial court does not disclose an element of need to occupy the premises and this is evidenced by the fact that the landlord has not taken steps to start the so-called aids research and treatment centre at Bangalore. It is submitted that there is not an iota of documentary evidence to show that the landlord has in fact taken any step in this direction to show his bona fides to occupy the premises. Elaborating the need to be established by the landlord sri shekar shetty, learned counsel appearing for the tenants further submitted that the court has to objectively assess the need and the related hardship and answer the request of the landlord. Me re desire to occupy the premises does not take the place of need. Mere intention on the part of the landlord to come home and take up the alleged project is not substantiated by evidence. It is further canvassed that the trial judge has dismissed the question of feasibility of partial eviction without any material on record and this is contrary to the ruling of the supreme court wherein the Supreme Court mandates the trial court of its duty to consider this concept of partial eviction upon recording the evidence on that vital question. Therefore, it is contended that the trial court has erred in granting an order of eviction without objectively considering the need put forth by the landlord and the impugned order of eviction is liable to be set aside. Therefore, it is contended that the trial court has erred in granting an order of eviction without objectively considering the need put forth by the landlord and the impugned order of eviction is liable to be set aside. ( 9 ) SRI m. p. eshwarappa, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord rebutting these contentions contended that the landlord is a doctor and philanthropist who has earned name and fame in usa, developed a desire to come back to his native place to serve his people in the field of aids research as he has acquired specialization in that field. He has no other alternative premises at Bangalore to start this institution except his own house which was given to him by his father. The tenants have nowhere disputed this honest intention of the landlord to open an institution in the premises though they have imputed something to the landlord like demanding higher rents and an attempt to sell the property to third parties. No such imputations are attributed to him when he entered the witness box. The tenants are now trying to make much of a few discrepancies in the pleadings and evidence and on the whole, the landlord has satisfied the conscience of the court about his bona fide requirement and in view of the special circumstances explained by the landlord to occupy the premises for a noble cause, even applying the objective test, the landlorc. Is entitled for an order of eviction and that the trial court has in fact considered all these facts and there are no good ground to interfere with the said order of eviction. He has also offered his comments regarding the feasibility of partial eviction. ( 10 ) IN the light of these contentions, two points arise for my consideration:1. Whether the landlord has proved his requirement which is both reasonable and bona fide having regard to the facts of the case?2. If so, whether the order of eviction granted by the trial court is justifiable? ( 11 ) THE object of rent legislation in the state of Karnataka has been discussed at length by a division bench of this court in syed abdul wadood v state of Karnataka and another. Part v of the act provides for control of eviction of tenants and obligations of landlords. The Provisions therein provided in Section 21 also provides certain protection to the tenants. Part v of the act provides for control of eviction of tenants and obligations of landlords. The Provisions therein provided in Section 21 also provides certain protection to the tenants. Clause (h) of Section 21 is one of those Provisions where the landlord can seek an order of eviction on the bona fide requirement. clause (h) provides that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by himself or any person for whose benefit the premises are held or where the landlord is a trustee of a charitable trust, that the premises are required for occupation for the purposes of the trust. The word "himself occurring in this clause has been explained by the division bench of this court in Dr. Syei sib- gathulla v c. m. abdul azeez khan. Commenting upon this question, the division bench has stated as follows:"what is the true meaning that should be given to the word himself used in clause (h)? The provision had come up for interpretation before this court in the case of k. s. appremeya lyengor v h. s. ramaswamy. The question for consideration was whether such ground fell within the purview of clause (h)". that great and indomitable somanath iyer, j. (as he then was) in that case proceeded to state as follows:"i have no doubt that i should understand the expression 'occu pation by himself occurring in Section 21 (1) (h) of the new act in the same way in which the expression 'his own occupation' was construed by divatia, j. The history of that clause, its language and its purpose demonstrate that its aim is to create a right to recover possession even when the premises are not required for the the landlord's personal occupation if, 'they are required for the occupation of someone whose occupation can be regarded as occupation of the landlord himself. somanath iyer, j. Further elaborated his view in the following vords: if Section 21 (1) (h) does not therefore insist on the personal occupation of the landlord, and, its scope is not expressly limited to the requirement of the members of his family as it was by the old Act, it should be given a meaning which makes it operate evenly, and, in a just and reasonable way. While the construction to be placed on its language should not expose the tenant to the jeopardy of an eviction on fanciful grounds, it should not denude the statute of the efficacy which the language and object portray. On such interpretation its Provisions extend to a requirement for occupation of persons whose occupation in substance is the landlord's own". refuting the contention in that case, the word "himself' only refers to the landlord in person or his dependents, who reside with him and not separately, the court held that: such a construction, in our view, is too technical and artificial as it would rob the provision of its real intention and purpose and it does not merit acceptance. Under variety of circumstances, the actual occupation of the premises by another has to be regarded constructively as the occupation by the landlord "himself or the occupant has to be regarded as an "emanation" of the landlord himself. It is not possible to state exhaustively all the circumstances in which the physical occupation of a person other than the landlord would have to be regarded as occupation by the landlord himself. ( 12 ) THE learned senior counsel Sri tarakaram relies upon this observation of the bench of this court to emphasize the contention that the landlord has nowhere stated that the petition premises is required for his personal occupation and such requirement cannot be considered as for self-occupation. ( 13 ) AS stated supra, there is no dispute that the landlord is a qualified doctor having domicile in usa. He claims to have specialised himself for treating aids for over 15 years. It is true that he has not produced any such medical certificate issued by a competent authority of the medical department of usa. But this claim has not at all been disputed by the tenants. The evidence of the landlord himself and his p. a. P. W. 2 as to show that he was a member of rotary club at Bangalore and that he supplied certain medical instruments, medicines and funds to this state to spend it for philanthropical purpose, mainly for giving medical aid to poor and needy. He emphasized a desire (i have used this term desire to record the intention of the landlord to occupy the petition premises ). He emphasized a desire (i have used this term desire to record the intention of the landlord to occupy the petition premises ). According to him, after acquiring such name and fame in the states, he decided to come back to india, particularly to Bangalore and set up his practice by opening aids research and treatment centre in his own premises. He was examined on 1-1-1997 in the trial court. He has stated that he would prefer to come back to india and settle at Bangalore. He changed his mind. He has stated before the trial court that he would keep coming here twice or thrice a year. He would establish this aids research and treatment centre with the co-operation of the rotary club, Bangalore and he would like the rotary to run this institution in his absence. He made a forceful plea before the trial court that he has no financial motive to start this centre in Bangalore. we would like to do charitable service to the Indian community. earning money was not his motive. According to him he was paying income-tax of Rs. 35 lakhs at usa and that he has earned wealth wherein he could spend for charitable purpose like aids research and treatment centre in India and more so in his own native place, 'bangalore. this is what according to him a noble and charitable purpose. What motivated him to spend a part of his life earning is not disclosed but a trace of such a thing is found in his evidence wherein he has stated that his father who was an owner of two storeyed building at sadashivanagar stayed in a small room situate in a car shed till his death giving these two premises to two tenants. The tenants have in fact questioned this very motto of the landlord in starting this institution in the premises. the arguments started short of calling him a Mad man to spend his earnings in a far off place in Bangalore when he is happily staying with his family members in the states. It is sometimes difficult to understand the people of such nature who prefer and profess and prefer to part with a portion of their earning and time in the service of mankind and also spend their hard earned money to the society. It is sometimes difficult to understand the people of such nature who prefer and profess and prefer to part with a portion of their earning and time in the service of mankind and also spend their hard earned money to the society. ( 14 ) BUT the question for consideration in a rent case would be whether this requirement of the landlord with all the noble plea behind him satisfies the requirement as defined in clause (h) of Section 21 of the act. ( 15 ) AS observed by the division this court in Dr. Syed sibgathulla's case, supra, the landlord need not necessarily occupy the pren ises in person. If he wants to run an institution either in his name or in his parents' name under whatever caption, is occupation for himself. Only because he wanted to entrust the management for a temporary period to rotary club does not take away the need to occupy the premises and to start the alleged aids research institute. I have made a searching scrutiny of the evidence of p. ws. 1 and 2 and r. ws. 1 and 2 to iind out whether there are mala fides in this requirement. Tenants have neither disputed this plan of the landlord nor his intention to come back to india to start this institution. What they wanted this court is to direct him to go elsewhere, from sadashivanagar to start the institution as it is not permissible to start aids research and treatment centre in a residential area. P. w. 1 says that it is not contagious and there is no prohibition to start such an institution even in a residential area and have quoted the instances where there are private hospitals and other commercial establishments on either side of sadashivanagar and also inside sadashivanagar which fact is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the tenants. They have not placed any expert evidence to rebut this claim of the landlord that a research institute of that type would not be a dangerous thing in a residential locality. Therefore, it is difficult for me to accept such a contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the tenants. ( 16 ) ONE other contention which is vehemently canvassed on behalf of the tenants is that the landlord expressed his intention to come to Bangalore and to settle here as per ex. Therefore, it is difficult for me to accept such a contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the tenants. ( 16 ) ONE other contention which is vehemently canvassed on behalf of the tenants is that the landlord expressed his intention to come to Bangalore and to settle here as per ex. R. 1 notice sent by him to one of the tenants, but he has changed his mind. It is undisputed that the landlord and his family members are residents of usa. Perhaps at some point of time he thought of coming over to Bangalore and settle here. But his idea of coming over here to start such an institution itself is not seriously in dispute. Some idea of that nature occurred to him few years back prior to issue of notice to the tenants and he was advised to file these eviction petitions and it took nearly four years tor these proceedings to conclude this stage in the high court and whether any purpose would be served for him to approach the central government or reserve bank of India or any authority concerned giving permission to invest his savings in his country or to open any such institution in this state. It is premature to ask such questions at this stage and there is no purpose in building up all those records only to satisfy the court to get an order of eviction. It is not difficult for a person of his status to secure certain corresponding with the central government or reserve bank of India if he wanted to place on record some documentary material in proof of his so-called genuine need. Therefore, to ask him at the stage of filing of eviction petitions to correspond with the government or the reserve bank of India and sought their permission etc. , to start an institution of this nature, in my opinion, is too premature. What is to be considered is whether the requirement put forth by him is in fact a genuine one. In the absence of any mala fides, there are enough material before the court to presume that the requirement is bona fide one and there is no prohibition in law for making such presumption as observed by the apex court in the latest judgment in arumugham (dead) by l. rs and others v sundarambal and another. In the absence of any mala fides, there are enough material before the court to presume that the requirement is bona fide one and there is no prohibition in law for making such presumption as observed by the apex court in the latest judgment in arumugham (dead) by l. rs and others v sundarambal and another. The apex court has stated as follows:"when a landlord says that he needs the building for his own occupation there is no doubt he has to prove it. But there is no warrant for presuming that his need is not bona fide. The statute enjoins that the court should be satisfied of his requirement. So the court would look into the broad aspects and if the court feels any doubt about the bona fides of the requirement it is for the landlord to clear such doubts. Even in a case where the tenant does not contest or dispute the claim of the landlord the court has to look into the claim independently albeit landlord's burden gets lessened by such non-dispute. In appropriate cases it is open to the court to presume that the landlord's requirement is bona fide and put the contesting tenant to the burden 10 show how the requirement is not bona fide". ( 17 ) FROM the discussion made above, in my opinion, the landlord has proved his bona fides to occupy the premises for himself to start aids research and treatment centre. The discussion made by the trial judge in this regard, in my opinion, satisfies the requirement of section 21 (1) (h) and I have no material to differ from his opinion and his finding is liable to be accepted. Hence, i answer point No. 1 accordingly. ( 18 ) THIS is a case where the tenants claim absolutely no hardship at all even though they are not as wealthy as the landlord who earns his money in terms of dollars. They are well-placed in life. This is disclosed in abundance in their evidence and no argument is addressed by the learned counsel in this regard. It is unnecessary for me to advert to their evidence in order to find out whether greater hardship would be caused to them if an order of eviction is granted. Their turnover per annum in their business is over sixty to seventy lakhs. They own their cars and all modern facilities. It is unnecessary for me to advert to their evidence in order to find out whether greater hardship would be caused to them if an order of eviction is granted. Their turnover per annum in their business is over sixty to seventy lakhs. They own their cars and all modern facilities. The grievance is that they have to pay exorbitant rents to secure similar accommodation in the same area. they have not stated that it is very difficult for them to secure similar accommodation by paying higher rent. Payment of higher rent for securing alternative accommodation, shifting of articles from one house to another house are some of the attendent hardships which flows from this order of eviction and they are all inevitable. ( 19 ) THE last leg of argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the tenants is that the trial judge's discussion regarding feasibility of partial eviction is not founded on material on record. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel relying upon the supreme court dictum that it is the statutory duty of the court to find out whether there is any possibility or feasibility of granting partial eviction and in the absence of any material, the trial court erred in rejecting such a contention. I have posed questions to the learned counsel on both sides and it is gathered that the petition premises consists of first floor and ground floor and each portion is a 3 bedroom residential premises. there is one entrance to each of the premises and there is no possibility of even granting a partial eviction of a portion of it, let alone half of it. nobody is prepared to take it. If that is the position, there is no question of considering the feasibility of partial eviction at all. It is just an idle formality to send the paper back to the court below only to get back the finding that such a possibility is not there. ( 20 ) THEREFORE, on a careful scrutiny of the judgment of the trial court with reference to the evidence on record, i find absolutely no error either on fact or law which needs to be revised. Therefore, there is no merit in these two revisions and accordingly they are dismissed. ( 20 ) THEREFORE, on a careful scrutiny of the judgment of the trial court with reference to the evidence on record, i find absolutely no error either on fact or law which needs to be revised. Therefore, there is no merit in these two revisions and accordingly they are dismissed. Petitioners-tenants are directed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the petition premises in their occupation, within six months from the date of this order. --- *** --- .