Chidananda Ullal, J. ( 1 ) ALL these HRRPs are intetconnected. The first HRRP is filed by the tenant in HRC No. 1605/93 to challenge the order thereon dated 17- 1-98 on the file of the XVI Additional Small Causes Judge, barigalore City. The second HRRP is filed by the landlord in HRC no. 1602/93 on the file of the Court of Small Causes Judge (SCCH no. 4) Bangalore City, dated 1. 10. 1999 in so far as the same related to rejection of the eviction petition in respect of a larger part of the petition schedule shop premises, and in the like manner, the third hrrp is filed by the tenant in the said HRC No. 1602/93 in so far as the same related to his eviction from the smaller part of the petition shop schedule premises, both the parts being in 'l' shape. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: ( 3 ) THE parties henceforth are referred to as landlord-firm' and the tenant/tenants as they were before the trial Court for convenience. ( 4 ) THAT the petitioner-landlord being a registered firm is represented by its two partners 1 (a) by name K. S. Raghavendra rao and 1 (b) by name Smt K. Anasuyamma, his mother. The landlord-firm had purchased four shops premises under a registered deed of sale dated 1 1. 2. 1973. All of them were in the ground floor portions bearing No. 106 (Old No. 585/7/5) situated at West Park Road, malleswaram, Bangalore. The landlord-firm had purchased one half of the 8 shops in the said number from M/s. Janardhana Enterprises. The shops were bearing No. 4 measuring 9'3"x 12'6", shop No,5 in 'l' shape measuring 14'x27' (larger part) plus 10'x 12'9" (smaller part), shop No. 10 measuring 1 1'3"x9' and shop No. 1 1 measuring 18'6"x9'. The shops No. 4 and 5 are facing 8th Cross Road Malleshwaram and were separating the shops No. 10 and 1 1 by a 3' common passage belonging to landlord -firm and thus the said shops No. 10 and 1 1 were facing the said 3' common passage running the west east direction. The shops No. 4 and 5 are facing 8th Cross Road Malleshwaram and were separating the shops No. 10 and 1 1 by a 3' common passage belonging to landlord -firm and thus the said shops No. 10 and 1 1 were facing the said 3' common passage running the west east direction. ( 5 ) THE landlord-firm sought for eviction of all four tenants in the said shops; accordingly it had filed four separate eviction petitions mainly for bonafide use and occupation of the same by itself in hrc No. 1605/93 as against the tenant in shop No. 4 (the petitioner in first HRRP), in HRC No. 1602/93 as against the tenant in shop no. 5 in 'l' shape (the petitioner in the third HRRP), HRC No. 1603 as against the tenant in shop No. 10 and HRC No. 1604/93 as against the tenant in shop No. 1 1. The landlord-firm in filing the above four eviction cases as agairist its four tenants had contended that it had purchased all the 4 shop premises including the subject premises in shop No. 4 and 5 for the purpose of its own bonafide use to run a backery business by the partner No. 1 (a), Raghavendra Rao while partner No. 1 (b), Anasuyamma, to be a sleeping partner and that the landlord-firm had intimated all the tenants of the said shop premises to atom the tenancy in favour of ;t. both orally as well as by notice of atonement dated 17. 2. 93 and accordingly, the tenants had since atorned the tenancies in favour of the landlord-firm and started paying rent ta them. That the monthly rental was Rs. 325/-for shop No. 4, whereas it was Rs. 480. 00 for shop No. 5 and that the tenancy months were as per English calendar month. ( 6 ) THE landlord-firm required all the A shops -as a corporate single unit for the purpose of storeroom, staff renting room, display and sales room, working room, etc. to run the bakery business and that the landlord-firm had no other premises for carrying on the said bakery business. It had also contended that its partner No. 1 (a), raghavendra Rao had undergone a course in bakery and obtained a certificate from baking unit of Agricultural University at Hebbal, bangalore. It also contended that the requirement of the landlord-firm was reasonable, bonafide, honest and genuine. It had also contended that its partner No. 1 (a), raghavendra Rao had undergone a course in bakery and obtained a certificate from baking unit of Agricultural University at Hebbal, bangalore. It also contended that the requirement of the landlord-firm was reasonable, bonafide, honest and genuine. It also, claimed that the partner No. 1 (a) was unemployed and as such, he had to start the bakery business along with his mother, the partner No. 1 (b), to earn their livelihood and as such, mere was a compelling necessity to start the said business. ( 7 ) IT appears that when the tenant in shop premises in HRC no. 1603/93 vacated from the premises during the pendency of the said eviction petition, the tenant in shop premises No. 1 1 in HRC no. 1604/93 compromised the case with the landlord-firm and thus the landlord-firm had secured the said shops premises No. 10 and 1 1 earlier to the impugned order passed separately in HRC Nos. 1602 and 1605/93 about which we are concerned with the three HRRPs. ( 8 ) IN the above HRRPs, the subject shops involved are the shop premises No. 4 in the first revision petition and the shop premises No. 5 in 'l' shape in the second and the third revision petitions, since the Trial Court had allowed the HRC No. 1602/93 in part inasmuch as it had ordered for partial eviction of the tenant in the said HRC, the tenant in the said HRC had challenged in the third HRRP aforementioned, the order thereon in so far as the same related to the eviction order in respect of the portion ad-measuring 10'x 12'9" (the smaller portion behind the shop premises No. 4), whereas the landlord-firm in filing the second revision petition had challenged the order in the said HRC No. 1602/93 in so far as the same related to the rejection of the eviction petition in respect of the main portion of the premises in question ad-measuring 14'x27'. ( 9 ) AT the cost of repetition, it is also added that when the first revision petition is directed against the order of eviction in HRC no. 1605/93 in respect of the shop premises No. 4, the second and the third revision petitions are directed against the order of partial eviction in HRC No. 1602/93 in respect of shop premises No. 5. 1605/93 in respect of the shop premises No. 4, the second and the third revision petitions are directed against the order of partial eviction in HRC No. 1602/93 in respect of shop premises No. 5. ( 10 ) BEFORE the Trial Court, the tenants in shops premises Nos. 4 and 5 have opposed the claim of the landlord-firm on the ground that the shops in question were required for their bonafide use and occupation for the purpose of running a Bakery business by the partner No. 1 (a) and they also opposed that they were the tenants for considerably long time and that they were well established in their respective textile business and that they will be put to greater hardships in the event of their eviction and that the landlord-firm had filed false case only to dislodge them from their business and further to evict them on false grounds. The Trial Court on appreciation of the material evidence adduced by the contending parties in the respective cases and further upon hearing their learned Counsel on record had finally passed two impugned orders one in HRC No. 1605/ 93, the order under challenge in the first revision petition and the partial eviction order in HRC No. 1602/93 as stated supra. The order under challenge in the second and the third revision petitions. ( 11 ) TO avoid confusion, I feel it appropriate to dispose of the first revision petition at the first instance whereas the second and the third revision petitions at the second since both the said two revision petitions are directed against the common order in HRC No. 1602/93. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY now I here below take-up the first revision petition. ( 13 ) AS stated above the order under challenge in the first revision petition is dated 17. 1. 1998 in HRC No. 1605/93, in passing whereof the Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record had allowed the eviction petition of the landlord-firm filed under Section 2 1 ( 1) (h)of the Karnataka Rent Control Act and granted five months time to the tenant to vacate from the premises. Before the Trial Court in the said case, the partner No. 1 (a),. Sri K. S. Raghavendra Rao had examined himself as PW. Before the Trial Court in the said case, the partner No. 1 (a),. Sri K. S. Raghavendra Rao had examined himself as PW. 1 and in his evidence he had deposed in consonance with the common case he had made out in filing the eviction petitions had deposed that he was a SSlc, he had come out of family business in Sanman Hotel and Vaidya Enterprises and that he had since undergone Training Course in Bakery in Agricultural university as per Ex. P6 and that the partnership firm had purchased the four shops under a common registered sale deed dated 1 1. 2. 1993 as per Ex. P7 for the purpose of running a Bakery business. He had also deposed before the Trial Court that unless the eviction order is passed as against the tenant, he would be put to greater hardship and injury, more so, when he is without any avocation. ( 14 ) PER contra, the tenant in the said case had examined himself as RW. 1 and further examined a witness by name Mohammad Abbas as RW. 2. The said witness was a labour Inspector. He was summoned to be examined by the tenant to show before the Trial court that the partner No. 1 (a) continued to be a partner of Hoysala hotel. It is pertinent to mention here that the Xerox copy of extract of 'b' register of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore marked as ex. R 1 pertaining to the Hoysala Hotel and that as per letter marked as Ex. R2-xerox copy of the letter dated 13. 6. 1997 shows that the partner in No. 1 (a) came to be discontinued to be a partner in the said family business. It is also pertinent to mention here that the xerox copies were sought to be marked by the counsel for the tenant without there being any objection by the counsel for the landlord firm. ( 15 ) THE Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence had allowed the eviction petition filed by the landlord-firm under Section 2 1 ( 1) (h)of the K. R. C. Act and further directed the tenant to vacate from the premises within five months from the date of order. ( 15 ) THE Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence had allowed the eviction petition filed by the landlord-firm under Section 2 1 ( 1) (h)of the K. R. C. Act and further directed the tenant to vacate from the premises within five months from the date of order. ( 16 ) THE learned Counsel for the tenant in the first revision petition, sri Naganand, argued that the Trial Court had erred inasmuch as it would not have entertained the Xerox copy of the documents in ex. R 1 and the extract of 'b' register on the record of the Corporation city of Bangalore since the same was not admissible in evidence. It was also argued by him that ever if the same were to be marked in evidence, the same could not be looked into as the same was not a document admissible in evidence. In support of his argument he had also cited before me a decision in AIR 197 1 SC 1865. ( 17 ) I do not think that the above argument of Sri Naganand can be accepted by this Court for the simple reason that it is his party who sought for examination of the said witness and it is his party who sought to be marked as Ex. R 1 despite the same being in Xerox, particularly when the counsel for the landlord-firm did not oppose such a marking and that being the case, I do not think that it is available for Sri Naganand to argue befor this Court as against the very conduct of his party in marking the Xerox copy of extract of 'b' register of the Corporation City of Bangalore That, I say for the reason that he cannot blow hot and cold inasmuch as. He cannot take advantage of his own party's folly. ( 18 ) IT is also pertinent to observe here that the tenant in the said case having acquired three other shops premises bearing shops No. 6 to 8 also belonging to M/s. Janardhana Enterprises, the vendor of the landlord-firm and further more his wife too had acquired yet another shop premises No. 9, also belonging to the said M/s. Janardhana Enterprises, had opposed the eviction petitions filed by the landlord-firm. It is further pertinent to mention here that the tenant himself had filed eviction petitions in No. 1 190/94, 1 192/94 and 1 19 1/ 94 as against his tenants to vacate from the premises on the ground that he himself was the tenant in respect of the petition schedule premises in question and further more his wife had filed yet another eviction in HRC No. 1877/94 to evict her tenant from the shop premises on that very ground that the shops premises in question were bona fide required for their own purpose. In the said facts and circumstances of the case. I do not think that the tenant can in any way contend before this Court that the Trial Court had passed an erroneous order to evict him from the shop premises in question. As a matter of fact, as I have seen, there was no serious argument advanced by the counsel for the tenant-revision petitioner inasmuch as he had requested the Court to be liberal in the matter of granting time to his party to make an alternative arrangement. ( 19 ) TO sumup his argument, Sri Naganand had prayed that aperiod of two years be granted to his party to vacate from the premises and also to make an alternative arrangement. ( 20 ) IN the said facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the instant Revision Petition first aforementioned filed by the tenant. At best in my considered view he may be entitled to some more time to vacate from the premises, in my considered view, six months time to him if granted, the same would be in the fitness of things. ( 21 ) WHILE producing the Xerox copy of the above decision reported in AIR 1971 SC 1865 , Sri Naganand had also appended thereof a small chit setting out therein seven decisions in support of the case of his party in the first Revision Petition. To place on record, the seven decisions noted in the said chit are as hereunder: 1. AIR 1950 Gau. 55. 2. AIR 197 1 SC 1865. 3. AIR 1979 SC 472 . 4. AIR 1944 lahore 58. 5. AIR 1989 P and H 300. 6. AIR 199 1 ORI 166. 7. AIR 1994 SC 1733 . 23. To place on record, the seven decisions noted in the said chit are as hereunder: 1. AIR 1950 Gau. 55. 2. AIR 197 1 SC 1865. 3. AIR 1979 SC 472 . 4. AIR 1944 lahore 58. 5. AIR 1989 P and H 300. 6. AIR 199 1 ORI 166. 7. AIR 1994 SC 1733 . 23. By the above, one thing is clear to me that the tenant in filing the Revision Petition first aforementioned is not serious of his context against the eviction order in HRC No. 1605/93 and to me it appears further that he had filed the Revision Petition only to buy further time and nothing beyond. ( 22 ) NOW I come to the second and the third Revision Petitions, which are Revision Petition and counter revision Petition filed both by the landlord-firm at the first instance and the tenants at the second. At the cost of repetition and to the context, I reiterate that the second revision Petition is directed against the order of the trial Court in hrc No. 1602/93 in so far as the same related to the rejection of the eviction petition of the landlord firm in respect of the larger part of the shop premises No. 5 in 'l' shape measuring 14'x27', whereas the third Revision Petition rjad been filed by the tenant in the said case in so far as the same-related to the smaller portion of the said shop No. 5 measuring 10'x 129" (on the eastern portion of the said larger part of the said premises and further situated in the rear side of the shop premises No. 4 under the occupation of the tenant in the first Revision Petition) since the same was ordered to be vacated by him in favour of the landlord-firm. ( 23 ) THE learned Senior Counsel, Sri V. Tharakaram, appearing for the learned Counsel for the landlord-firm, Sri V. K. Dwarakanath and Sri V. Sanjayakrishna, the learned Counsel on record, had taken me through the order that came to be passed in HRC No. 1605/93 at the outset. ( 23 ) THE learned Senior Counsel, Sri V. Tharakaram, appearing for the learned Counsel for the landlord-firm, Sri V. K. Dwarakanath and Sri V. Sanjayakrishna, the learned Counsel on record, had taken me through the order that came to be passed in HRC No. 1605/93 at the outset. It was argued by him that the landlord-firm in filing the said eviction petition and further filing three other eviction petitions as against the tenants in respect of all the four shops premises had set up a common ground that the partners No. 1 (a) and 1 (b) being the son and the mother purchased all the four shops premises under a common registered sale deed of the year 1993, Ex. P6, in the name of the partnership firm for a specific purpose of starting a bakery business by the partner No. 1 (a) since he had been unemployed having come out of the family business in two partnership concerns i. e. Sanman Hotel and Vaidya Enterprises and as such was desirous of starting bakery business with a necessary certificate he had obtained from Agricultural University. Ex. P 1 1 and that in support of the above case made out the landlords had examined the partner No. 1 (a), Raghavendra Rao, and produced in support of the case 20 documents and that they included Ex. P. l-lega! notice dated 10. 6. 1993 issued by it to the tenant, Ex. PS-reply notice dated 5. 7. 1995, Ex. P. H. certificate of landlord No. 1 (a) issued by the Bakery Training Unit of Agricultural University of Bangalore. Ex. P6-sale deed dated 1 1. 2. 1993, Ex. P9 partnership deed dated 22. 9. 1992 and Ex. PIO-certificate of registration. ( 24 ) WHILE taking me through the evidence on record both oral and documentary adduced by his party, it was argued by Sri tharakaram that the landlord-firm had adduced clinching evidence in support of its case and it is for that reason. The trial Court had rightly appreciated the same. He further pointed out in this regard that it is the evidence on the similar lines adduced by the partner no. 1 (a), Raghavendra Rao in HRC No. 1605/93 and accordingly, the trial Court would have/ as well allowed the eviction petition in its enterity in favour of the landlord-firm in the instant case in hand too. He further pointed out in this regard that it is the evidence on the similar lines adduced by the partner no. 1 (a), Raghavendra Rao in HRC No. 1605/93 and accordingly, the trial Court would have/ as well allowed the eviction petition in its enterity in favour of the landlord-firm in the instant case in hand too. While turning to the impugned order in the case, Sri Tharakaram further argued that the tria' Court had partially allowed the petition filed by his party erroneously and in doing that the trial Court while allowing the eviction petition in so far as the same related to the smaller portion of the shop premises No. 5 measuring 10 x 12'9", a portion lying on the eastern side of the main portion of shop premises no. 5 (the portion lying on the northern side of the shop premises no. 4) had rejected the eviction petition in so far as the same related to the larger portion of the said shop premises No. 5 measuring , 14'x 27' running on the south-north direction. According to him, there was no good reason for the trial Court to allow the eviction petition in the above manner, particularly, when the landlord from in filing the eviction petitions had clearly averred in all the eviction petitions that all the four shops premises bearing shops premises No. 4, 5, it)and 1 1 under the occupation of the tenants were all commonly required by the landlord-firm for the purpose of starting bakery business. While drawing my attention to para-7 of the eviction petition, it was also argued by Sri Tharakaram that in the said para, the petitioner had in an unambiguous terms averred that ail the four portions of the shops premises were purchased by the landlord-firm only for the purpose of starting bakery business and that it wanted to make use of the all the portions of the shop premises for setting up store room, staff resting room, display as well as sales room, working room, oven room, etc. , and that the said schedule premises and other adjacent rooms were convenient for starting bakery business and that in the event the eviction order were not to be passed in the manner prayed for in the eviction petition, the landlord-firm will be put to irrepairable loss and injury. , and that the said schedule premises and other adjacent rooms were convenient for starting bakery business and that in the event the eviction order were not to be passed in the manner prayed for in the eviction petition, the landlord-firm will be put to irrepairable loss and injury. ( 25 ) IT was also further argued by Sri Tarakaram that the evidence adduced by the petitioners in examining the partner No. 1 (a) as pw. 1 before the trial Court, he had clearly deposed on true lines of the eviction petition and that being the case, according to him. The trial Court would not have allowed the eviction petition in part in the above manner, but on the other hand, it would have allowed the eviction petition in its entirety in respect of the shop premises No. 5. ( 26 ) IT was submitted by Sri Tharakaram that the partial eviction of the shop premises No. 5 had not at all been pleaded by the tenant and further more proved by him by adducing evidence thereto. To elaborate that limb of argument, Sri Tharakaram had also submitted that the trial Court would not have, in the facts and circumstances, allowed the eviction petition in part in a way totally to help. The tenant, more so, when the point No. 3 set by the trial Court as to whether the petitioners have proved that they will be put to greater comparative hardship, if the petition is not allowed, was answered by the trial Court in favour of his party. ( 27 ) SRI Tharakaram had also argued before this Court that if an equitable partition of the Shop premises was not practicable, it was not proper for the trial Court to make two portions of the entire premises in 'l 1 shape in a manner it did as above in passing the impugned order. According to him, the division of 'l' shape shop as above was totally whimsical and by that process neither of the parties was helped, According to him, the said division caused in passing the impugned order was not at all useful to either side. In this context, sri Tharakaram had cited before me a reported decision of this Court in Ilr 1985 Kar. 1872. In this context, sri Tharakaram had cited before me a reported decision of this Court in Ilr 1985 Kar. 1872. ( 28 ) IN the said case, the learned Single Judge of this Court had held as hereunder:"the requirement of comparing the need of a landlord with that of a tenant will apply even to a case of partial eviction. The court would have to strike a just balance between the land lord and tenant so that no injustice is done to either of the two parties. In granting the Petition under Section 2 1 ( 1) (h) of the Act in respect of portion of a building alone the Court must act reasonably, that is to say, that the division should be made in a manner that the needs of both are satisfied. The jurisdiction to make an order of eviction in respect of a part of the premises does rot entitle the court to divide the premises whimsically in a manner which may not be useful for either of the two parties. Accordingly before passing any such order, the Court must satisfy itself that no hardship is going to be caused either to the landlord or to the tenant. The division of the property made must be workable. " ( 29 ) SRI Tharakaram had also cited before me an unreported decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in HRRP No. 1277/ 97 on the point of feasibility of partial eviction. While drawing my attention to the observationi of the learned Single Judge at paras-8 to 10, it was pointed out by Sri Tharakaram that in the said case. The learned Single Judge had observed that where the landlord wants to start central excise consultancy and refresher course, the need of which had already been held as reasonable and bona fide, it had to be held that the tenant was not absolved from the obligation to show that the evidence 'hardship he Suffers', in the event if there is no decree or order for 'partial eviction'. It was also pointed out by sri Tharakaram with reference to the said part of the judgment in the said unreported case, the learned Single Judge had referred the case of CHOKADl VENKATARAMAN vs KASHIM SAHEB 1. It was also pointed out by sri Tharakaram with reference to the said part of the judgment in the said unreported case, the learned Single Judge had referred the case of CHOKADl VENKATARAMAN vs KASHIM SAHEB 1. Yet another decision, Sri Tharakaram had cited in this regard was the reported decision in the case of S. N, NAGARAJA SHETTY vs bramalavathamma. While taking me through the said decision, he had emphasised to look into the observation made therein that the Court may in appropriate case direct, slight alteration or modification in the structure and that is only in an exceptional measure when the admitted facts point out that inconvenience, injustice or hardship will result to the parties having regard to the situation of the premises, its structure, the financial condition of the landlord firm and other relevant factors. ( 30 ) NEXTLY Sri Tharakaram had argued that admittedly in the instant case in hand, the tenant had not even adduced an iota of evidence, for an order of partial eviction of the premises in question by the trial Court, much less in filing the detailed objection statement as against the eviction petition he had pleaded for partial eviction of the premises before the trial Court. According to him, the parties are not relieved of the burden of adducing evidence in the matter of feasibility of partial eviction, no matter that the Court is bound to consider that point. It was also argued by Sri Tharakaram that in para-9 of the evidence adduced by the partner No. 1{a) examined as PW. 1 deposed clearly with meticulous details in the manner in which how he proposed to make use of all the four portions of the shops premises for the purpose of running bakery business by the landlord-firm. In this context, it is relevant to quote what Sri tharakaram adverted to the evidence by PW. 1. ( 31 ) TO quote the same, the same reads as hereunder:"9. The shop premises Nos. 10 and 1 1 will not be sufficient for my bakery. I will have to use the shop Nos. 10 and 1 1 for store room and staff room. The shop No. 5 which is the subject matter of HRC. 1602/93 is on the main road i. e. Malleshwaram 8th Cross road. The said shop No. 5 is necessary for me for display sales and working table. ! I will have to use the shop Nos. 10 and 1 1 for store room and staff room. The shop No. 5 which is the subject matter of HRC. 1602/93 is on the main road i. e. Malleshwaram 8th Cross road. The said shop No. 5 is necessary for me for display sales and working table. ! can reach shop No. 5 only from 8th crossroad, Malleshwaram. The revision filed against the order in HRC. 1605 of 93 is pending before the Hon'ble High court, the passage connecting shop No. 4 on one hand and shop nos. 10 and 1 1 on the other hand passes through shop No. 5. Therefore, unless I got shop No. 5 vacated I cannot have a connecting passage from shop No. 4 to shop Nos. 10 and 1 1. The total carpet area of shop Nos. 4, 5, 10 and 1 1 will be about 1000ft. I cannot carry on my bakery business unless and until I get the vacant possession of the said shop No. 5. " ( 32 ) IN the above context, Sri Tharakaram had also pointed out that time and again the Courts have consistently held that the landlord has to be given fair amount of discretion in the matter of making best use of the premises owned by him. On this point Sri Tharakaram had placed a reliance on decision reported in the case of MEENAl ekanath vs TRADERS AND AGENCIES and in the case of prat 1ba DEVI vs T. V. KRISHNAN. ( 33 ) SRI Tharakaram had also relied upon a decision rendered by me in Ilr 2000 Kar. 3360, In the said decision when before this court the tenant had urged a ground that the landlord had not pleaded in his eviction petition the business requirement for the purpose of running a ready made garment business, it was held by me that only because the landlord had not led evidence about his financial capacity to start the business out of his anxiety, it could not be said that the landlord did not plead his requirement for the purpose of running a garment business in the eviction petition. ( 34 ) THE learned Senior Counsel for the landlord -firm had cited further the following decisions in support of his case. 1) T. N. SHANKARA RAO vs S. A. WAJID on the point of inconvenience to tenant. ( 34 ) THE learned Senior Counsel for the landlord -firm had cited further the following decisions in support of his case. 1) T. N. SHANKARA RAO vs S. A. WAJID on the point of inconvenience to tenant. No ground for not making an order of eviction. 2) MADRIRA Q AN APATHY vs V. MURUGAPPA on the point of section 2 1 (4) partial eviction to be made only when no hardship is caused. 3) MATTUlal vs RADHElal on the point of objective test to be applied and not subjective test for starting business by landlord. 4) CHANDRASHEKAR B vs VAMANSHET on the point of open space in front of residence - access. 5) SEEla CHADDA'vs ACHHRAJ RAM SEGUAl on the point of landlord's discretion to need 6) DATTATREYA laxman KUMBle vs ABDUl RASOOl mqulali on the point that a person has no practical experience and is fallacious and unpragmatic. 7) RAGHAVENDRA KUMAR vs FIRM PREM MACHINERY AND co. 1 on the point that the landlord is the best judge of his cause. 8) CHANDRASHEKARAPPA VIRUPAKSHA APPAJI vs SSM swami on the point of that the documents even when not marked as exhibits, can be looked into. 9) SHIV SARUP GUPTA vs Dr. MAHESH CHAND GUPTA. ( 35 ) THEREFORE, according to Sri Tharakaram, the Trial Court could not have passed the impugned order ordering for partial eviction of the premises and instead it would have allowed the eviction petition in its entirety to facilitate his party to start the bakery business in all the four shops premises holding that all the shops premises were purchased by the partnership firm for its own bona fide use and occupation inasmuch as in all the four shops premises it had to accommodate a store room, staff resting room, display room, sales room, working room, oven room etc. , for purpose of running the proposed bakery business by the landlord-firm through partner no. 1 (a), Raghavendra Rao, PW. 1. ( 36 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel, Sri K. S. Nagaraja rao, appearing for the tenant (he is the respondent in HRRP no. 1059/99, whereas he is the petitioner in HRRP No. 1204/99) had argued that the landlord-firm; had filed a false case by making false presentations that all the four shops premises in question were bona fide required for the purpose of running the bakery business. 1059/99, whereas he is the petitioner in HRRP No. 1204/99) had argued that the landlord-firm; had filed a false case by making false presentations that all the four shops premises in question were bona fide required for the purpose of running the bakery business. It was also argued by him that earlier filing of the instant eviction petition, their vendor too. Had filed eviction petitions as against the tenants in all the four shops premises and that when their vendor, M/s. Janardhana Enterprises, had failed to evict their tenants including the tenant in the instant case, only by making believe presentations that the partner No. 1 (a) of the landlord-firm had undergone training in bakery business and as such, he himself and his mother-partner no. 1 (b) wanted all the shops premises for the purpose of running the said bakery business, the present landlord-firm had filed the eviction in the next round, that too, immediately after the purchase of the property. ( 37 ) IT was argued by him that the partne- No 1{a) was earlier a partner in two partnership business of the family by name 'sanman hotel' and 'vaidya Enterprises' And that he had setup a theory ,that he had come out of the sad two family business and as such all the four shops premises were bona fide required for the purpose of running the bakery business by his firm. It was also argued by him that in the Partnership deed, Ex. P7, he had not even mentioned the capital investment in the partnership business of the landlord-firm inasmuch as the partner of the firm No. 1 (a) in his evidence he had clearly admitted that in the said partnership deed, the capital investment had not been shown at all. It was pointedly argued in this context by Sri Nagaraja Rao that neither PW. 1 nor the partner no. 1 (b) had not even contributed any sum for the purpose of running the: partnership business in bakery business, further mbre neither the Bank account was opened nor a project report came to be prepared for the purpose of running the partnership business. According to Sri Nagaraja Rao, if the pleadings in the eviction petitions were to be closely read in the light of the evidence adduced by P. W. 1, it is clear therefrom that PW. According to Sri Nagaraja Rao, if the pleadings in the eviction petitions were to be closely read in the light of the evidence adduced by P. W. 1, it is clear therefrom that PW. 1 (partner No. 1 (a) of landlord firm)had shown as if he was an unemployed and he was only a sslc and as such his need to start the bakery business was just and proper It was vehemently argued by Sri Nagaraja Rao in this context that the very fact that five months after coming out of the family business of PW. 1, 'the landlord-firm had purchased the shops premises under a sale deed dated 1 1. 2. 1993, Ex. P6 and Form No. 5-ex. P 16 for retirement from family business, came to be filed on 3 1. o3. 1993, whereas the partnership deed in the name of the landlord-firm i. e. Sneha Enterprises came to be executed under Ex. P3 only on 22. 10. 1993. While drawing attention of the Court to Ex. P6-sale deed, it was also pointed out by Sri Nagaraja Rao that the sale consideration in respect of purchase of shops premises came to be paid by way of cheque and further Rs. 50,000,00 by way of pay order. ( 38 ) WHILE taking me through the instant eviction petition filed by the landlord-firm, it was further argued by Sri Nagaraja Rao that there was no pleading with regard to the reasonable requirement of the landlord-firm in seeking eviction of the four different shops premises of different dimensions vis-a-vis the need of the landlord-firm. According to him, it is that aspect of the case, the Trial Court had not properly appreciated and it is for that reason, all the eviction petitions including the eviction petition filed by the landlord as against his party came to be allowed, of course in part. ( 39 ) NEXTLY Sri Nagaraja Rao had also found fault with the said approach of the trial Court inasmuch as according to him, the trial court had failed to apply the objective test in the matter of passing the eviction order in the eviction petition filed by the landlord-firm. ( 39 ) NEXTLY Sri Nagaraja Rao had also found fault with the said approach of the trial Court inasmuch as according to him, the trial court had failed to apply the objective test in the matter of passing the eviction order in the eviction petition filed by the landlord-firm. In this context, he had cited a reported decision of the Supreme Court in the case of MATTUlal vs RADHElal supra, wherein, the supreme Court held that the test which has to be applied in the case of eviction petition under the Rent Control Act is an objective test and not subjective test and the word 'required' in the Rent Control act signifies that mere desire on the part of the landlord is not-enough but there should be an element of need and that the landlord must show, the burden being upon him that he genuinely requires the non-residential accommodation for the purpose of starting or continuing his own business. ( 40 ) SRI Nagaraja Rao in support of his argument had cited the following decisions:1) In the case of S. PEER MOHAMMED vs B. MOHAN lal sowcar. The said decision rendered under the Tamil Nadu Rent Control act while considering the term 'claim' in Clause (e) of Section 10 (3)of the said Rent Control Act, the Supreme Court held that the said term should be construed as 'the requirement' of the landlord or his deservedness and 'deserve' means to have a rightful 'claim 1 or 'a just claim' As I see, it is further observed therein that in the context of Rent Control law which is enacted for the purpose of giving protection to tenants against unreasonable eviction and for the purpose of making equitable distribution of buildings amongst persons who are in need of them, in order to prove that his claim is bona fide a landlord should establish that he deserves to be put in possession of the schedule premises which is in the occupation of a tenant. 2) In the case of M. S. ZAHED vs K. RAGHAVAN. 2) In the case of M. S. ZAHED vs K. RAGHAVAN. The said decision came to be rendered under Section 2 1 ( 1) (4)of the Karnataka Rent Control Act and it was held therein that for purpose of the requirement of the landlord has to be bona fide and reasonable and if any of one these two elements of requirement is missing or both the elements are missing on the facts of the case, no decree for possession can be passed in favour of the landlord under the said provision. 3) In the case of RAM DASS vs ISWAR CHANDER AND others. It was held thereunder that the question whether the requirement of the landlord is bona fide or not is essentially one of fact, notwithstanding the circumstance that a finding of fact in that behalf is a secondary and inferential fact drawn from other primary or perceptive ones and that all conclusions drawn from primary facts are not necessarily questions of law and as such they can be quite often are, pure questions of fact and hence the question as to bona fide requirement is one such question. 4) In the case of SHEENA NA 1k vs lawrence D'souza. While considering Section 2 1 (4) in the matter of comparative hardships and the duty cast on the landlord, the learned Single Judge of this Court had hel'd that it was not enough if the landlord even proves that his requirement is reasonable anc bona fide and that he has to further satisfy the Court on the aspect of comparative hardship. 5) In the case of VARITY EMPORIUM vs VRM MOHD. IBRAHIM naina. It was held in the said case that while deciding the question whether requirement of landlord was just and proper, all facts including that eviction would render the tenant homeless should be considered by Court, whether required by the statute or not and as such filing of eviction petition immediately after purchasing the property, on facts, held, not indicate bona fide requirement. ( 41 ) THE other decision cited by Sri Nagaraja Rao are as follows:1) Mattula! vs Radhe lal supra 2) M. M. QUASIM vs MANOHAR lal SHARMA 3) 1990{ 1) Klj SN No. 2, 4) SARAla AHUJA vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY ltd. ( 41 ) THE other decision cited by Sri Nagaraja Rao are as follows:1) Mattula! vs Radhe lal supra 2) M. M. QUASIM vs MANOHAR lal SHARMA 3) 1990{ 1) Klj SN No. 2, 4) SARAla AHUJA vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY ltd. 5} NASIRUl HAQUE vs JITENDRA NATH DEY 6) HElper GIRDHARBHAI vs SAIYED MOHAMAD MIRASAHEB kadri 7) 1987 (3) SCC 538 : 8) BISHAN CHAND vs Vth ADDITIONAl DISTRICT JUDGE, buland SHAR (UP ). 9) TAlati KANTIlal BHUMABAI vs lalitaben ( 42 ) TO sumup, Sri Nagaraja Rao prayed that the impugned order in so far as the same related to the partial eviction of his party from part of the schedule premises (in 1' shape) hereunder challenge in the third revision petition filed by his party be set aside and that the original eviction petition filed, by the petitioners in HRC No. 1602/93 be dismissed. ( 43 ) ALTERNATIVELY Sri Nagaraja Rao had also argued that in the event of this Court were not to reject the eviction petition as prayed for as above, this, Court be pleased to confirm the order of the partial eviction order passed by the trial Court in the said case. ( 44 ) IT was argued by Sri Nagaraja Rao in support of his alternative argument as above that the trial Court had rightly appreciated the comparative hardship his party would be put into in the event of his eviction from the entire shops premises. It was further pointed out by him in this context that the landlord-firm had filed the four eviction petitions as against four tenements including the tenant, his party, in shop premises IMo. It was further pointed out by him in this context that the landlord-firm had filed the four eviction petitions as against four tenements including the tenant, his party, in shop premises IMo. 4 in HRC No. 1605/93 and the subject matter being shop premises No. 5 in 'l' shape and tenant in shop premises No. 10 in HRC No. 1603/93 and shop premises No. 1 1 in HRC No. 1602/93 and shop premises No. 4 in HRC No. 1605/93, whereas all the shops premises in shops premises No. 4, 10 and 1 1 were ordered to be evicted and out of the shop premises No. 5 under the occupation of his party, a portion of the premises measuring 10'x12'9" were ordered to be vacated in favour of the landlord-firm in partial consideration of eviction petition filed by it in HRC No. 1602/93 It was also pointed out by Sri Rao that in filing the four eviction petitions, the common ground urged was that the shops premises were bona fide required for the purpose of running the bakery business by the partner No. 1 (a)of the landlord-firm. According to him, the trial Count had weighed the pros and cons and the comparative hardships and thus it had ordered for partial eviction of the premises under the occupation of his party leaving main portion of the said premises to an- extent of 14'x27' running in south-north direction while ordering for his eviction from the portion to an extent of 10'x 12'9". ( 45 ) THEREFORE, alternatively he prayed that the impugned o'rder in so far as the same related to the partial eviction of his party as aforementioned be confirmed. ( 46 ) NOW in the light of the above arguments advanced, the twin questions that arise for my consideration are as follows; i) Whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court in hrc No. 1605/93, the order under challenge in the first revision petition, is just and proper or not? ii) Whether the impugned order in so far as the same related to the partial eviction in shop premises No. 5 under the occupation of the tenant in HRC No. 1602/93 is just and proper or not? ii) Whether the impugned order in so far as the same related to the partial eviction in shop premises No. 5 under the occupation of the tenant in HRC No. 1602/93 is just and proper or not? ( 47 ) AT the outset, I have to state here that in the light of the argument and the counter argument advanced by the contending parties in the above HRRPs, I have gone through the records in the instant HRRPs besides I have also gone through in detail the records in the original HRC No. 1605/93 and HRC No. 1602/93 and upon that 1 have to hold that the allowance of HRC No. 1605/93 and further partial eviction of the tenant in shop premises No. 5 in allowing the hrc No. 1602/93 in part, the subject matter in the three Revision petitions are just and proper and as such the same are not called for to be interfered with in any way. Therefore, it is obvious that my answer to the above twin questions are in the affirmative. The reasons are as hereunder: ( 48 ) ADMITTEDLY, the landlord-firm having purchased the four shops premises No. 4, 5, 10 and 1 1 had filed four independent eviction petitions as against all the four tenants in the said shops premises on the common ground that the landlord-firm had purchased the same from the previous landlord, (also their previous vendor) M/s. Janardhana Enterprises on the grounds, firstly that the shops premises were purchased by them under a duly registered sale deed for the sole purpose of running the bakery business by the partner no. 1 (a) (examined as PW. 1) as he being an unemployed having come out of the family business in 'sanman Hotel' and 'vaidya enterprises', secondly that the partner No. 1 (a) being unemployed had undergone training in Bakery in the Agriculture University at bangalore evidenced by Ex. P 1 1-certificate issued by the Bakery Unit of Agriculture University at Bangalore, thirdly that upon purchase of all the shops premises, all the revenue records of Corporation City of Bangalore came to be transferred in the name of partnership firm as per partnership deed-Ex. P 1 1-certificate issued by the Bakery Unit of Agriculture University at Bangalore, thirdly that upon purchase of all the shops premises, all the revenue records of Corporation City of Bangalore came to be transferred in the name of partnership firm as per partnership deed-Ex. P7 and fourthly that the partner No. 1 (a)shall make use of the four shops premises for the said bakery business, partner No. 1 (b) being the mother and a sleeping partner and for that purpose they have to setup store room, staff resting room, display and sales room, working room, oven room, etc. , ( 49 ) I have to pointout here that though in para-7 of the eviction petitions in the cases the landlord-firm had commonly stated as above, they had not setout as to what were all the dimensions of the above five rooms and what dimensions they require for the purpose business in bakery and further more even in the evidence in support of the eviction petition as above, it had not adduced evidence to say as to what were the dimensions of the 4 shops and what was the dimensional needs of landlord-firm for the purpose of running bakery business. To crown it all, PW. 1 in his evidence had clearly deposed that he intend to display the articles in the petition schedule premises presently under the occupation of the tenant in hrc No. 1602/93. The petitioner in the third Revision Petition furthermore, in his evidence, he did not say that he required a staff resting room out of the four shop premises. ( 50 ) IN this context, it is relevant to quote what the landlord-firm had stated with regard to its requirement in para-7 of the petition vis-a-vis the evidence adduced by it in examining PW. 1, the partner no, 1 (a) of the landlord-firm. ( 51 ) IN para-7 of the petition, the partner No. 1 (a) of the landlord-firm had averred with regard to his requirement as hereunder:". . . . The petitioners want to make use of the entire premises purchased under the aforesaid sale deed by them, for the bakery business, i. e for the purpose of a store room, staff rest room, display and sales room, working room, oven room etc. . . . The petitioners want to make use of the entire premises purchased under the aforesaid sale deed by them, for the bakery business, i. e for the purpose of a store room, staff rest room, display and sales room, working room, oven room etc. , with that intention only the petitioners have purchased the entire premises in question as mentioned in the schedule of the sale deed. . . . . " ( 52 ) IN the evidence of PW. 1 with regard to the requirement had stated as hereunder. ". . . I intend to display the articles in this schedule property. The other shops I intend to use as store room, oven room and staff rest room. I have no other property for starting the business. . . . . " ( 53 ) ON going through the pleading and the evidence with regard to the requirement of the landlord-firm, it is clear therefrom that the evidence is not consonance with the pleading. To clarify further in this regard, it is to be pointed out here that, when in the pleading, the land lord firm had stated that it wanted a room to be used as staff resting room and further a room required for display and sales purpose, in the evidence of PW. 1, he did not state that he wanted a room to be used as staff resting room and further a room exclusive for display and sales purpose inasmuch he had stated that he required the petition schedule premises only as a display room. It is not out of context to observe here that the pleading of the landlord firm in the matter of its requirement in the four shops premises is one whereas its evidence is another. ( 54 ) YET another aspect of the case is that in filing the eviction petitions, the landlord-firm had neither pleaded nor spoken to in its evidence as to the dimensional-wise requirement, least of it, it not even produced a rough sketch or a hand sketch describing dimensions of the four shops premises in shops premises No. 4t 5, 10 and 1 1. All the more, as 1 see, it had only produced a rough sketch showing the situations of the said four shops premises with the actual dimensions shown and further adjacent shops premises no. All the more, as 1 see, it had only produced a rough sketch showing the situations of the said four shops premises with the actual dimensions shown and further adjacent shops premises no. 6, 7 and 8 purchased by the tenant in HRC No. 1605/93 and further the shops premises No. 9 purchased by the wife of the tenant in the said HRC from the vendor of the landlord-firm herein i. e. M/s. Janardhana Enterprises and such a production by him was only at the stage of advancing the final argument in the above case i. e HRC No. 1602/93 and HRC No. 1605/93 to assist the Court, probably to understand the case and that the said sketch produced by the landlord-firm at the point of time of advancing the argument as stated above is found at page No. 30 of the paper book filed in the second and third revision petitions. At best, it appears to me that such a sketch would have been produced in evidence and spoken to by PW. 1. ( 55 ) IN this context, Sri Tarakaram, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the landlord-firm had placed reliance on reported decision in the case of CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA virupakshappa APPAJI vs SRIMAD SADGURU MUPPINENDRA swami. That he did to take the above sketch produced at the time of argument as the sketch marked in the evidence in support of the case for eviction. At para-4 of the said judgment, it was observed therein that a resolution though shown as marked by red pencil as an Exhibit, it did not bear the seal and attestation of the presiding officer and however, the Courts-, below have taken the same as a document marked for the. purpose of the case. This Court in the circumstances endorsed. So in that case that position i do not think that the said case has got any bearing to the instant case in hand to treat the sketch produced at the time of argument as an Exhibit and documentary evidence in support of the case of the landlord-firm. In the reported case as I see, there was omission on the part of the Court to put the seal and to affix the initial for marking of the resolution in the case, but in the case in hand. In the reported case as I see, there was omission on the part of the Court to put the seal and to affix the initial for marking of the resolution in the case, but in the case in hand. It was not at all the case, for the rough sketch was produced only at the time of addressing the final argument and as such was not even produced and spoken to by the witness from the side of landlord-firm. ( 56 ) HENCE, I do not think that the sketch can be now read into the evidence of the landlord-firm at all. To me it appears that the production of the rough sketch in question at the time of addressing the argument was only to make good the serious lapse on the part of the landlord-firm in producing ample evidence with regard to the dimensions of the four shops premises vis-a-vis the dimensional need for the purpose of the business of the landlord-firm and nothing beyond. ( 57 ) LET apart in the rough sketch produced by the landlord-firm at the time of advancing the final argument in HRC No. 1602/93 and hrc No. 1605/93 referred to above, it is clear that shop No. 4 measured 9'3" x 12'6" the 'l' shape premises in shop No. 5 measure 14'x27' + 10'x 12'9". In the like manner, when the shop No. 10 in hrc No. 1603/93 measured 1 1'3" x 9', shop No. 1 1,measured 18'6"x9'. According to me, with the eviction of the tenants in shop nos. 4, 10 and 1 1 and further with the partial eviction of the tenant in Shop No. 5 as above, the landlord-firm is now to its advantage has got the shops No. 4, 10 and 1 1 and further part of shop No. 5 situated the right behind the shop premises of shop No. 4 haying its main entrance from 8th Cross Road, Malleshwaram; dimension wise, thus the landlord-firm is left with 27'x 10' (shop No. 4 and the evicted portion of shop No. 5) facing 8th Cross Road, Malleswararn on the one side plus 9'x30' (Shops No. 10 and 1 1 together) on the other with the bifurcation of the two portions by the 3' common passage in between, whereas the tenant in HRC No. 1602/93 (second and third revision petitions) is left with only 14'x27'. The cumulative-effect of the above worksout to carpet area of 54q sq. ft. to the landlord firm (30'x9'=270 out of shops No. 10 and 1 1+27'x 10'=270 out Of shops no. 4 and the evicted portion of shop No. 5) whereas the tenant in hrc No. 1602/93 is left with carpet area of 378 sq. ft. ( 58 ) IN the light of the pleadings of the landlord-firm and the evidence aduced by its partner No. 1 (a) as stated in para (53) supra, i do not think, it could be said that the impugned order passed by the trial Court in HRC No. 1602/93 in any way be teamed as erroneous. That I 'say for the reason that under Section 2 1 (4) of the act in the event the Court is satisfied that no hardship will be caused either to the tenant or to the landlord by passing the decree in respect of part of the premises, the Court shall pass such decree in respect of such part only. ( 59 ) IN this context, I feel it appropriate to quote the provision in section 2 1 (4) of the Act. The same reads as hereunder:"2 1 (4 ). No decree for eviction shall be passed on the ground specified in Clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section ( 1) if the court is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the question. Whether other reasonable accommodation is available for the landlord or the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. If the Court is satisfied that no hardship would be caused either to the tenant or to the landlord by passing the decree in respect of a part of the premises, the Court shall pass the decree in respect of such part only. " ( 60 ) THAT, in fact, what this Court held in 1973 ( 1) Mys, U 3 15 very well cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the landlord-firm. ( 61 ) IN para 6 (ii), it had been observed therein as hereunder:". . . . . " ( 60 ) THAT, in fact, what this Court held in 1973 ( 1) Mys, U 3 15 very well cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the landlord-firm. ( 61 ) IN para 6 (ii), it had been observed therein as hereunder:". . . . . THIS apart, Section 2 1 (4) of the Act, the latter part of which has reference to such partial eviction, clearly imposes a condition on a Court in regard to hardship, which being a question of fact must be found by ,a Court as a condition precedent for the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. The condition is that such eviction could be ordered only if it does not cause hardship either to the landlord or to the tenant To put it differently, if it is likely to cause hardship to any one of them, it is not open to the court to decree partial eviction. . . . . . . . " ( 62 ) IN the instant case, the trial Court did fix a point on that count inasmuch as the point No. 4, it had setout therein to say: is there any possibility or to make any order for partial eviction The said point No. 4, as I see, the trial Court had considered in the impugned order and in para- 13 thereof it had considered that point, of course, for the reason that the advocate for the respondents had argued before it that the partial eviction was possible in the case and that the trial Court in the light of the above arguments advanced, considered the hardship of the tenant and come to the just conclusion that hardship of the tenant could be mitigated by passing an order of eviction in part. As I further see, while discussing the said point at para- 13, the trial Court had observed that it will be convenient for the landlord-firm to use both shops No. 4 and 5 by erecting a common wall in between the main portion of the shop No. 5 measuring 14'x27' running in south-north direction and the evicted portion measuring 10'x 12'9" running in east-west direction and thus can have an opening to the shop No. 4 in HRC No. 1605/93 measuring 9' 13"x 12'6" and further have connection with the shops No. 10 and 1 1 in the rear. According to the trial Court, such an arrangement will be convenient for both the parties, the tenant in shop No. 5 and the landlord-firm. ( 63 ) ACCORDING to me, by weighing pros and cons of the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court had come to just conclusion that an order of partial eviction was possible by adopting a policy of live or let live'. ( 64 ) I have carefully considered the reasoning of the trial Court on the discussion on point No. 4 on that point of partial eviction in para- 13 of the impugned order in the light of statutory provision in section 2 1 (4) of the Act and further more, in the light of the circumstances that the tenant in shop No. 4 will be left with carpet area of 378 ft. whereas the landlord-firm for the purpose of running the bakery business will be left with carpet area of 540 ft. , of course; with a passage having a width about 3 ft. running in east-west direction in between the shops No. 4 and 5 on the one side and the shops No. 10 and 1 1 on the northern side on the other. ( 65 ) IT also appears to me that in the absence of evidence with regard to the dimensional need vis-a-vis the size or volume of the business in bakery business and further more in the absence of the project Report out lining the total investment in the business by the landlord-firm, it could not be said that that the partial eviction of the tenant in shop No. 5 is in any way erroneous. ( 66 ) IN the result, all the Revision Petitions fail and accordingly stand dismissed in confirmation of both the orders passed by the trial Court in HRC No. 1602/93 and HRC No. 1605/93 ( 67 ) THE tenant in HRC No. 1605/93, the subject matter in the first Revision Petition is granted six months time from this day to vacate from the portion of shop premises No. 4 under his occupation. ( 68 ) LIKEWISE the tenant in HRC No. 1602/93, the petitioner in the third revision petition is granted six months time from this day to vacate from the portion of the shop premises No. 5 ordered to be vacated by him by the trial Court. ( 68 ) LIKEWISE the tenant in HRC No. 1602/93, the petitioner in the third revision petition is granted six months time from this day to vacate from the portion of the shop premises No. 5 ordered to be vacated by him by the trial Court. ( 69 ) LET the landlord-firm now erect the wall in between the evicted portion and unevicted portion of shop No. 5 as per the direction of the trial Court to give effect to the partial eviction order passed by it. In HRC No. 1602/93. There shall be all co-operations from the side of the tenant in the shop premises No. 5 for the purpose. ON THE PETITION FOR REVIEW filed by the landlord in Review Petition No. 408/200 1 in HRRP No. 1059/ 1999 the following Order was passed. ( 70 ) THIS review petition is filed on twin grounds, firstly, that a sketch describing the same as proposed plan was produced and marked as Ex. P 15 before the trial Court and whereas this Court had taken that the rough sketch at Page-50 (not at Page-30 as contended in the Review Petition herein) of the paper book was a hand sketch one produced before the trial Court at the time of argument of "the case, and secondly, on the ground that this Court had observed at page-54 and 67 in the Order herein sought for to be reviewed, that in the absence of the evidence with regard to the dimensional need vis-a-vis the size or volume of the business in bakery business and further more in the absence of the Project Report outlining the total investment in the business by the landlord-firm, it could not toe said that partial eviction of the tenant at Shop No. 5 is in any way erroneous, when PW 1 - petitioner herein in his evidence, in fact, had stated that for starting'the business he required Rs. 2 lakhs and he has got the funds. ( 71 ) IN consideration of the Review petition filed by the petitioner, i should state that, Ex. P 15, the proposed plan was not adverted to during the course of the arguments and further more when the paper book filed in the case the sketch placed at Page-50 thereof had not been shown as Ex. P 15 and further that in the index to the paper book at SI. P 15, the proposed plan was not adverted to during the course of the arguments and further more when the paper book filed in the case the sketch placed at Page-50 thereof had not been shown as Ex. P 15 and further that in the index to the paper book at SI. No. 3 thereof, it has been described as 'sketch proposed plan'. ( 72 ) ADDED to it) in the decision reported in CHANDRA-shekarappa VIRUPAKSHA APPAJI vs SSM SWAMI, listed at SI. No. 14 of the list of decisions upon which reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner was on the point that the documents even when not marked as exhibits, can be looked into. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the same was cited by the learned Sr. Counsel in reply to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in another HRRP that is HRRP 662/98, that Xerox copy of the document though marked in the cross examination of the witness of the other side, the same was not admissible in evidence as such the said, evidence cannot be looked into by this Court. In this connection, I may say that, during the course of arguments in that regard there was some lapses in presentation of the case from the side of the petitioner. ( 73 ) LET apart, in the evidence of the petitioner examined as PW 1 in the trial Court though claimed Ex. P 15 to be the sketch of the proposed plan, admittedly stated that the same was prepared by his vendors and that he. was not knowing the Engineers who had prepared the same. ( 74 ) NOW I come to the second part. No doubt, the petitioner PW 1 in his evidence did speak about the requirement of the business, it was stated b; him in his evidence that he required Rs. 2 lakhs for his business and he has got such funds with him But this evidence, as I see, has got no foundation in the pleadings in the eviction petition. At Para-7 of the Eviction petition all that the petitioner has pleaded is that he has got required fund. It is relevant to observe here that he did not. plead in the Eviction Petition as to what was his actual business requirement in terms of money. At Para-7 of the Eviction petition all that the petitioner has pleaded is that he has got required fund. It is relevant to observe here that he did not. plead in the Eviction Petition as to what was his actual business requirement in terms of money. That -apart, the original HRRP was dismissed for more than one reason. ( 75 ) I feel it appropriate to state in this context that the. . original eviction petitions were filed by the petitioner without requisite' pleadings probably with high and fond hope that un-employment and training certificate in Backing obtained by him, marked at Ex. P 1 1, would automatically qualify him to obtain eviction orders in these cases. ( 76 ) THEREFORE, I do not find any merit in the instant review petition. It is high time that the petitioner be satisfied and happy that he had justice both in the hands of the trial Court and this Court, for he had larger part of the promises despite there being insufficient pleadings in the original petition/ petitions. All the more in passing the order sought to be reviewed, this Court only confirmed the order of the trial Court in the original eviction petitions and nothing beyond. ( 77 ) REVIEW Petition stands rejected.