V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THESE petitions are filed by both the tenant and the landlords. The tenant is aggrieved by the eviction order passed against him under Section 21 (1) (h) and the landlords are aggrieved by the order of rejection of the petition under section 21 (1 ) (a) and (t) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, and sought for setting aside the order passed by the Additional Small Causes Judge, bangalore, dated 14-1-1999 in H. R. C. No. 1114 of 1996. ( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience the rank of the parties is referred to as tenant and landlords. ( 3 ) (A) The brief facts of the case are that the eviction petition was filed by the landlords against the tenant under Section 21 (l) (a), (f), (h) and (p) of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (now repealed) (in short referred to as the 'act'), seeking eviction. The case of the landlords is that the shop premises in question was leased in favour of the tenant for the purpose of carrying on business in bangles. It is alleged that he had stopped the business and left to firezabad in Uttar Pradesh, but has subleased the said premises to one Sri ramkumar who is in occupation of the premises and that the landlords are receiving monetary consideration from him. Therefore, it is alleged that the tenant has unauthorisedly sublet the schedule premises to Mr. Ramkumar without the consent or knowledge of the landlords. Hence, they have sought for eviction of the tenant on that ground under Section 21 (1 ) (f) of the Act. (B) At paragraph 6 of the eviction petition it is stated that premises in question is bearing No. 2 situated in 3rd Cross, Santhusapet, Bangalore, which forms a part of corner building consisting of three shops and a residential premises. Out of the three shops two shops were let out to the tenant and the remaining one shop was in occupation of the original landlord and his sons were carrying on business in the said shop in stainless steel articles and the residential premises is in occupation of the deceased landlord and his family members. (C) It is the case of the landlords that the premises was leased in favour of the tenant in the year 1980. Thereafter, the deceased landlord's elder son discontinued his studies. (C) It is the case of the landlords that the premises was leased in favour of the tenant in the year 1980. Thereafter, the deceased landlord's elder son discontinued his studies. Consequently, one of the rooms in the residential premises was converted into a shop and the landlord had commenced the stainless steel business in the said shop premises and his second son also discontinued his studies and joined him to carry on with the said business. The further case of the landlords is that the measurement of the shop which is in their occupation is 8' x 81/2'. Since the family strength of the landlords had increased, they were in financial need and as such they diversified the business and they are presently dealing with household articles like pressure cookers, mixer grinders, hotbox and other appliances. Therefore, the deceased landlord wanted the premises in question for the bona fide need and requirement of himself and his family members as additional accommodation. It is further stated that the 1st son, who got married, is in occupation of one bedroom and another bedroom was in occupation of the landlord and his wife. After his demise, the same is in occupation of his wife and his second son who is yet to be married. Therefore, additional accommodation is required for his son's use and occupation and the landlords wanted to shift their business to the petition schedule premises measuring 15', 3' x 8' and so as to convert the shop in their occupation as bedroom. For the aforesaid reasons, it is pleaded in the eviction petition that the requirement of the petition schedule premises in occupation of the tenant is absolute, genuine, eminent and reasonable. (D) The landlords have pleaded that other shop premises at No. 3, sudarshan Complex, P. S. Lane, Chickpet Cross, Bangalore - 560 053 is concerned, which is just opposite to the schedule premises, is not suitable for them to cany on their business and that the same is not vacant. (E) The eviction petition was opposed by the tenant by filing a detailed counter-statement traversing the petition averments. The bona fide need and requirement for additional accommodation of the landlord and his family members is denied. It is stated that the premises in question is very convenient for doing business and that the landlords have got sufficient place to do their business. The bona fide need and requirement for additional accommodation of the landlord and his family members is denied. It is stated that the premises in question is very convenient for doing business and that the landlords have got sufficient place to do their business. It is stated that they are also having a big shopping complex near the petition schedule premises. Therefore, it is stated that there is no genuine need and requirement of the landlords for the premises in question. There are no bonafide and reasonable requirement of the premises for seeking an order of eviction against the tenant. The allegations regarding arrears of rent and also regarding the sublease of the premises in favour of one mr. Ramkumar are denied. It is specifically stated that the tenant has not sublet the premises as alleged and he himself is doing business in the premises and that the said fact is within the knowledge of the landlord. It is stated that the residential accommodation is also sufficient for them and therefore, they do not require the premises for their bona fide use and occupation for additional accommodation. (F) When the case went for trial, on behalf of the landlord his son prashanth was examined as P. W. 1 and produced documents marked as Exs. P. 1 to P. 21. On behalf of the tenant he himself was examined and produced documents marked as Exs. R. 1 to R. 24. After trial and upon hearing the learned Counsels for the parties, the Trial Court has formulated 7 points for its consideration. Points 1 to 3 relating to the arrears of rent, sublease and acquisition of the vacant possession of the property by the tenant are negatived. Point 4 is answered in the affirmative holding that the landlords have established the bona fide need and requirement of the schedule premises. On point 5 with regard to the hardship also, the Trial Court answered against the tenant holding that greater hardship would be caused to the landlords, if an order of eviction is not passed against the tenant. With regard to the partial eviction of the premises, the Trial Court has held that it is not possible to pass such an order in respect of the shop premises. With regard to the partial eviction of the premises, the Trial Court has held that it is not possible to pass such an order in respect of the shop premises. Consequently, the petition was partly allowed under Section 21 (1) (h) of the act and rejected the petition on the other grounds by recording its reasons in the impugned order. Aggrieved, by the order of eviction under Section 21 (1 ) (h), the tenant has filed a H. R. R. P. No. 696 of 1999. The landlords being aggrieved by the rejection of the petition filed under Section 21 (l) (a) and (f) have filed H. R. R. P. No. 524 of 1999. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsels for the tenant has strenuously contended that the findings and reasons recorded on Point 4 with regard to the bona fide need and requirement of petition schedule premises are bad in law, as the Trial court, has committed an error in law as it has not properly appreciated the documentary evidence viz. , Ex. R. 23 and also Ex. R. 24 the certified copy of the extract of house and vacani site Register of the Bangalore Mahanagara palike produced by him. In the said certified extracts issued by the Bangalore city Corporation, at column (7) of Ex. R. 23, it is shown that shop No. 7 of sudarshan Complex belong to the deceased landlord is vacant. Therefore, the landlords should have moved to the said shop and made use of the same for their business. Since that has not been done, they do not have buna fide requirement of the premises in question as claimed by them. It is urged by the counsel that the said documentary evidence on record in favour of the tenant has been completely ignored by the Trial Court while recording its findings and reasons in answer to the point 4. It is further contended that the residential premises which is in their occupation is adequate and sufficient for the purpose of their accommodation. The additional accommodation sought for in the schedule premises is wholly unjustified in law as it is only their desire but there are no bona fide requirement. The learned Counsel for the tenant Sri c. N. Kamath has strenuously contended that the claim made by the landlords is under misconception for their additional residential accommodation. The additional accommodation sought for in the schedule premises is wholly unjustified in law as it is only their desire but there are no bona fide requirement. The learned Counsel for the tenant Sri c. N. Kamath has strenuously contended that the claim made by the landlords is under misconception for their additional residential accommodation. The trial Court without taking into consideration the relevant facts and evidence on record, particularly the documentary evidence at Ex. R. 23 by which the tenant has established that the landlords have got another vacant shop premises situated at Shop No. 6, 3rd Cross, B. S. Lane, has passed the order of eviction. Therefore, the order of eviction passed against the tenant is wholly unsustainable in law. The tenant has been carrying on the business in that area for quite a long period and greater hardship would be caused to him, if an order of eviction is passed. But the Trial Court failed to note this aspect. The finding recorded by the Trial Court on the question of partial eviction holding that, it is not feasible to pass a partial eviction order is also unjustified in law therefore, he requests this Court to allow the petition filed by the tenant. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the landlords Sri S. K. V. Chalapathy has vehemently opposed the findings and reasons recorded on points 1 to 3 against the landlords. He submits that though there is abundant evidence on record to answer the same in the affirmative, they have been negatived. In the course of his submissions, though this revision petition is filed against the rejection he has confined his submissions only to the ground under Section 21 (1 ) (f) of the Act. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsels for the tenant has sought to justify the findings recorded on the above said points by the Trial Court by contending that the findings are based on legal evidence on the record. He submits that in the certified copy of the Registration Certificate issued by the senior Inspector of the Labour Department the name of the employer of establishment is shown as Mr. Mohanlal Jindal. According to the Counsel, the findings recorded on sublease by the Trial Court are justified. He submits that in the certified copy of the Registration Certificate issued by the senior Inspector of the Labour Department the name of the employer of establishment is shown as Mr. Mohanlal Jindal. According to the Counsel, the findings recorded on sublease by the Trial Court are justified. Further, it is contended that both the tenant and his brother have been carrying on the business in the shop in question and the evidence on record has been properly appreciated by the Trial Court for answering point 2 and recorded its finding in the negative by assigning valid reasons. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the revision petition of the landlords. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel Sri S. K. V. Chalapathy for the landlords submitted that the revision petition filed by the tenant is liable to be rejected for the reason, that the Trial Court after proper appreciation of facts and evidence on record, has rightly answered the contentious points 3 to 6 in favour of the landlords on being satisfied that they have established the bona fide need and requirement as claimed by them, with reference to Ex. P. 9, the sketch showing the schedule shop premises and residential accommodation which is in their occupation, he has also stated that the schedule shop premises which is in occupation of the tenant is suitable for the landlords to shift their business and the shop premises in their occupation be converted into a bedroom to the 1st son, Dharnendra Kumar of the deceased landlord which case has been rightly accepted by the Trial Court on proper appreciation of facts and evidence on record. Further, it has been elicited in the evidence of p. W. I and cross-examination of R. W. 1-Mohanlal Zindal with reference to ex. R. 23 wherein he has admitted that the particulars furnished in the said document are not correct facts. In pursuant to the direction of this Court vide its order dated 23-8-2002 the affidavits on behalf of the landlords the second son of the deceased landlord and tenant filed explaining factual position which existed as on that date. The son of the deceased landlord has stated in his affidavit with reference to Ex. In pursuant to the direction of this Court vide its order dated 23-8-2002 the affidavits on behalf of the landlords the second son of the deceased landlord and tenant filed explaining factual position which existed as on that date. The son of the deceased landlord has stated in his affidavit with reference to Ex. P. 20, dated 4-6-1993, the partition deed which discloses that there is partition between his father and brother of the deceased landlord, five shops were allotted to his father and the shops on the ground floor were allotted to the share of his brother which are in occupation of tenants. The affidavit of B. P. Prashanth, the second son of the deceased landlord reads as follows. "i, B. P. Prashanth S/o late B. P. Padmarajaiah, residing at No. 2, santhusapet, 111 Cross, Bangalore-53, one of the petitioners in the above revision petition, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows. 2. 1 respectfully submit that the premises bearing No. 6, santhusapet, Bangalore, was originally consisted of ground floor portion only. It was partitioned between my father and his brother as per Ex. P. 20, dated 4-6-1984. The Southern portion of the ground floor consisting of five shops was allotted to my father. The shops in the ground floor portion that were allotted to the share of my father are in the occupation of five tenants namely, (1) M/s. Heera Bangle Stores (Shop Nos. 6/6 and 6/7), (2) M/s. Vinod Opticals (Shop No. 6/8), (3) m/s. Prakash Woven Labels (Shop No. 6/9), (4) M/s. Deepak Cycle stores (Shop No. 6/10) and (5) M/s. Milan Plastics (Shop No. 6/11 ). The said tenants are in occupation of the premises since last more than 20 years. No shop belonging to me is vacant. Sd/- deponent" ( 8 ) THEREFORE, he has submitted that there is no alternative shop premises available for the landlords as pleaded by the tenant. Apart from the said contention, in justification of the finding and reasons recorded by the Trial court on contentious point 4, learned Counsel for the landlords has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ragavendra Kumar v Firm prem Machinery and Company, in the said case, it is observed that the landlord is the best Judge as to which premises is suitable for residential or business purpose and he will have complete freedom in the matter. Therefore, the learned Counsels for the landlords has submitted that in view of the observations made in this case the findings and reasons recorded on the ground under Section 21 (1 ) (h) of the KRC Act need not be interfered with by this Court. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsels for the landlords urged that the tenant has also filed an affidavit pursuant to the direction of this Court referred supra, wherein he has stated at paragraph 5 that he has referred to Ex. P. 9, the sketch of the premises and the accommodation available with the landlord reveals that there is accommodation available for the purpose of bedroom for the landlords family. In the accommodation available in the premises now in occupation of the landlord, there is enough accommodation and space which can be used as bedroom in addition to the bedroom available. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the landlords has drawn the attention of this Court with reference to the Ex. P. 15 which is with regard to the sublease of the premises and also oral evidence of P. W. 1 and R. W. 1. Particularly, documentary evidence Ex. P. 15 is dated 16-3-1995, the Xerox copy of the registration certificate of the establishment in the name of M/s. Heera Bangle Stores in respect of the petition schedule premises and that the name of the employer of the establishment is mentioned as Mr. Ramkumar zindal on the basis of the application filed by, him under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial establishments Act, 1961 read with Rule 4 of the Karnataka Shops and commercial Establishments Rules, 1963 (in short, 'ksce Act and Rules' ). Ramkumar zindal on the basis of the application filed by, him under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial establishments Act, 1961 read with Rule 4 of the Karnataka Shops and commercial Establishments Rules, 1963 (in short, 'ksce Act and Rules' ). ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel has placed strong reliance upon the evidence elicited in the examination-in-Chief of P. W. 1 at paragraphs 6 and 8 and also invited my attention to the cross-examination portion of R. W. 1-tenant at paragraph 10 also placed strong reliance upon the documentary evidence referred to supra to show that the findings of the Trial Court on the ground of section 21 (1) (f) of the KRC Act sublease are erroneous in law, as it has failed to consider the legal evidence on record properly in answering the point 2 in the impugned order at page 9 and therefore he submits the Trial Court has committed an error in law in holding that in the certificate of registration of the establishment produced and marked as an Ex. P. 15 by the landlords, the name of brother of the tenant which is shown as Mr. Ramkumar Zindal and the other certified copy of the certificate produced by the tenant shows the name of Mr. Mohanlal Jindal as the owner of the establishment in the shop premises and therefore, it has wrongly held that there is no sublease of the petition schedule shop premises to Mr. Ramkumar Zindal, the said finding is erroneous in law as the same are not supported with assigning proper and valid reasons and further contended that the findings recorded by the Trial court on the aforesaid point stating that the tenant belongs to a family which manufactures bangles and the manufacture work is done at U. P. and the tenant often goes to U. P. to look into the factory affairs and to bring bangles from that place to the schedule premises for carrying on with his business. Further, it is contended by the learned Counsel that the Trial Court has erroneously held that merely because he is not available in the premises it cannot be said that he has subleased the shop premises to Mr. Ramkumar. Further, it is contended by the learned Counsel that the Trial Court has erroneously held that merely because he is not available in the premises it cannot be said that he has subleased the shop premises to Mr. Ramkumar. It is urged that the said findings receded by the Trial Court are erroneous in law as it has failed to appreciate the legal evidence on record properly with reference to Ex, P. 15 and also oral evidence of P. W. 1 and therefore it has erred in not placing reliance on the said document on the ground that the tenant's name has been mentioned in the certified copy of the certificate produced by the tenant subsequently which document is not marked and proved the contents of the same in accordance with law and also without examining the provisions of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and rules referred to supra. Therefore, the learned Counsels for the landlords has prayed to set aside the findings recorded by the Trial Court, as the premises in question is not subleased by the tenant in favour of Mr. Ramkumar and requests this Court to allow the petition on this ground also by allowing their revision petition. ( 12 ) LEARNED Counsel Sri C. N. Karnath strongly placed reliance on the certified copy of the shop registration certificate obtained from Senior labour Inspector of Labour Department, Bangalore, wherein, it clearly mentions the name of the tenant as the employer of the establishment registered before the authority, and further contended that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded its finding in answer to the contentious point regarding sublease of the shop in question. ( 13 ) WITH reference to the above said legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, this Court has taken up the revision petition filed by the tenant to find out whether the findings recorded on the points 4 and 6 are based on proper appreciation of evidence and law laid down on the legal questions which arose for consideration of the Trial Court, this Court proceeds to record its reasons in answer to the contentions urged on behalf of the parties as hereunder. ( 14 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsels for the parties, I was taken through the evidence on record by both the learned Counsels for the parties in support of their respective claim. The Trial Court has referred to the pleadings, evidence and recorded its findings with reasons at paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned order in answer to the above referred contentious points and held that the petition schedule premises is required as an additional accommodation for the landlords as they have established their bona fide need and requirement of the suit schedule premises. It has rightly held that the schedule shop premises is required for the landlords to shift their business to that premises and to convert the shop premises which is presently in their occupation as additional accommodation for the residential purpose after it is suitably converted as bedroom to accommodate the same for the son of the deceased landlord, who is yet to be married. The said finding is recorded by the Trial Court after accepting the documentary evidence at Ex. P. 9 a rough sketch which is produced by the landlords which document is not disputed by the tenant. ( 15 ) THE Trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record and has come to the right conclusion and held that the present residential accommodation available for the landlords as per Ex. P. 9 is totally insufficient for their use and occupation, therefore, their claim has been properly considered and appreciated by it and recorded a finding of fact after considering the evidence on record and held that the shop premises which is in occupation of the tenant at present, can be used for their business and the shop premises which is in their possession can be converted for their residential use. Further, the Trial court after taking into consideration of the documentary evidence at Exs. P. 23 and P. 20 as well as the oral evidence on proper appreciation of the legal evidence on record recorded its finding in support of the same, it has elaborately referred to the said documentary evidence and also the evidence elicited in the cross examination of P. W. 1 with regard to five shops measuring 10' x 10', one shop measures 40' x 20' as referred to at Ex. P. 23 it is held by it holding that they are not available for the landlords as the same are leased to the tenants. The claim of the landlords and the petition schedule premises measures 15' x 3' x 8' which is adjacent to the residence of the landlords to cany on their business is very much suitable and further rightly recorded its finding in their favour and the said findings are based on the judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra in the case of Ragavendra kumar, upon which the learned Counsels for the landlords has rightly placed reliance in support of the case of the landlords. In the present case, the Trial court having recorded its findings on the question of availability of alternative accommodation to the landlords as sought to be established by the tenant before the Trial Court has been considered, but it has rightly rejected holding that the above said contentions urged on behalf of the tenant by recording its valid reasons after appreciating the legal evidence on record properly. ( 16 ) IN my considered view, the Trial Court has also rightly recorded a finding of fact while answering the point 5 with regard to whom greater hardship would be caused if an order of eviction is passed after proper consideration of evidence on record by assigning valid and cogent reasons in support of its conclusions. Further, at paragraph 20 of the impugned judgment on point 6, the Trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence on record with reference to the status of the tenant and the nature of the business which is carried on by him, and on his own admission in his evidence, it has recorded a finding of fact stating that the landlords have established their claim and correctly held that they require the shop in question for their bona fide use and occupation and the tenant has to search for an alternative accommodation, as he is financially sound he could secure alternative accommodation, if he makes necessary efforts. Therefore, the Trial Court is right in recording the finding on both points 5 and 6 at paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned order. Therefore, I do not find, any good reasons to interfere with the findings recorded on the above said points as the same are not vitiated on account of either erroneous reasoning or error in law. Therefore, the Trial Court is right in recording the finding on both points 5 and 6 at paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned order. Therefore, I do not find, any good reasons to interfere with the findings recorded on the above said points as the same are not vitiated on account of either erroneous reasoning or error in law. For the reasons slated supra, the legal submissions made on behalf of the tenant that the order of eviction passed by the Trial Court having regard to the fact of recording valid and cogent reasons on contentious points 4, 5 and 6 after proper application of mind to the legal evidence on record and also the law on this question it has rightly recorded its findings with reasons and has held that the landlords have established their case of bona fide need, requirement and there is genuineness in the claim of seeking an order of eviction against the tenant in respect of the schedule premises. 1 am, therefore, of the view that it is not necessary and proper for this Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Court below, as 1 am fully convinced that there is no injustice caused to the tenant in passing an order of eviction against him. Hence the petition filed by the tenant is liable to be rejected as there is no merit in any one of the grounds urged in the revision petition. ( 17 ) WITH reference to the rival legal submissions made on behalf of the parties, this Court has examined the point 2 framed by the Trial Court with regard to the sublease of the premises in question by the tenant to Mr. Ramkumar Zindal. The approach of the learned Trial Judge is erroneous in recording his findings on this point as the same suffer from error in law for the reason that he has not placed reliance upon the document at Ex. P. 15, even though the tenant has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the xerox copy of the shop registration certificate is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and rules before the Senior Inspector of the Department in the year 1995 in respect of the shop in question, the employer of M/s. Heera Bangle Stores is in the name of Mr. Ramkumar, as required under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the above said Act and Rules. The registration of the commercial establishment of the sub-tenant as could be seen from the document was made in the year 1995, in the cross-examination of R. W. 1-tenant at paragraph 7 he has categorically admitted that there is no registration of his commercial establishment with the authority under the relevant provisions of the above said Act and Rules. He has admitted that the shop has been registered in the name of Mr. Ramkumar, when the document Ex. P. 15 was confronted to him by the learned Counsel for landlords in the cross-examination of R. W. 1. In the cross-examination he has categorically admitted that the certificate of the establishment is in the name of M/s. Heera bangles Stores, it is not in dispute that the tenant himself has produced the certified copy of the registration certificate of the establishment, which is very much available in the record but it is not marked, wherein the name of mr. Mohanlal Jindal is mentioned in the said document as owner of the said establishment and not in the name of the tenant-Mr. Ramkumar Jindal and therefore this Court has directed the learned Government Pleader to secure the registration details pertaining to the establishment housed in the shop in question. Accordingly, he has produced the original register maintained by the Department for having registered the shop in question under the provisions of the KSCE Act and he did not produce the entire record as directed by this Court of the reasons stated in the affidavit by Labour commissioner. As could be seen from the original register produced by the labour Department, the name of the tenant Mr. Mohanlal Jindal has been subsequently written in the above register after the name of Mr. Ramkumar jindal was (rounded off) as the owner of the establishment pursuant to the order dated 18-4-1996 that means it is a change of the employers name in the register amended by the Department in respect of establishment registered with the Department. Mohanlal Jindal has been subsequently written in the above register after the name of Mr. Ramkumar jindal was (rounded off) as the owner of the establishment pursuant to the order dated 18-4-1996 that means it is a change of the employers name in the register amended by the Department in respect of establishment registered with the Department. Therefore, this Court is required to examine whether such change of employer's name in the certificate issued in respect of the establishment registered with the Department can be made and whether it is permissible under the provisions of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial establishments Act and Rules is examined and considered by this Court to answer the contentious point. Section 4 of the KSCE Act contemplates registration of a Establishment under the provisions of the Act, which provision reads thus. "4. Manner of registering establishments and the form of registration certificate. On receipt of the statement and the form prescribed in (Rule 3 or Rule 3-A), the Inspector shall after being satisfied about the correctness of the statement, register the establishment in the register of establishments which shall be in form 'b' and shall issue a registration certificate to the employer in form 'c' ". Section 4-A of the KSCE Act provides for issue of duplicate certificate of registration: where a certificate of registration granted or renewed under Rule 3 or 3-A is lost, defaced or accidentally destroyed a duplicate copy of the certificate of registration may be granted on payment of a fees'? section 5 of the KSCE Act contemplates the changes how notified:"the employer shall notify to the inspector concerned any change in respect, if any information contained in his statement under (Rule 3 or Rule 3-A) in Form 'd' within 15 days after the change has taken place". ( 18 ) BY reading of the above provisions of the KSCE Act and relevant rules, nowhere it is provided to change the name of the employer of the establishment in the register and also regarding the transfer of the ownership of the establishment which already registered under the provisions of Act and rules is permissible. ( 18 ) BY reading of the above provisions of the KSCE Act and relevant rules, nowhere it is provided to change the name of the employer of the establishment in the register and also regarding the transfer of the ownership of the establishment which already registered under the provisions of Act and rules is permissible. Therefore, the change of name of the employer of the establishment in the name of the tenant in the register maintained for registering the commercial shops and establishments by the Department under the provisions of the Act and Rules after 18-4-1996 and issuance of the certified copy of the certificate is not a valid document and therefore the said document cannot be accepted as a valid document produced by the tenant. As could be seen from the Xerox copy of Ex. P. 15 Establishment Registration certificate issued to Mr. Ramkumar Jindal the establishment which is housed in the shop in question is registered in the year 1995 in his name and it is the case of the deceased landlord that the premises in question was subleased in the year 1995 to him i. e. , without his knowledge and consent. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge was not correct in not accepting the documentary evidence produced at Ex. P. 15, and R. W. 1 the tenant has also admitted in his cross-examination with regard to that said document for the reason assigned by him that the certified copy produced by the tenant shows his name. The trial Judge should have examined the legality of the said document with reference to the provisions of the Act and Rules referred to supra and it should have recorded a finding on facts that transfer of the establishment registered under the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and Rules to any other person and entering his name in the records in the place of existing owner name is totally impermissible in law. Therefore, the Trial court is not correct in recording its finding holding that the premises in question has not been subleased to Mr. Ramkumar Jindal by the tenant and further the Trial Court was also not right in not considering the documentary evidence viz. , Ex. Therefore, the Trial court is not correct in recording its finding holding that the premises in question has not been subleased to Mr. Ramkumar Jindal by the tenant and further the Trial Court was also not right in not considering the documentary evidence viz. , Ex. P. 19 the advertisement got published by him in the Deccan herald daily newspaper dated 21-1-1997, wherein it is mentioned the telephone number in the name of the sub-tenant in the shop in question and further it has been elicited in the evidence of R. W. 1 that he has not maintained any books of accounts in running the business in the shops in question. It is one more strong circumstance, for this Court to draw an adverse inference against him particularly having regard to the undisputed fact that the shop housed in the petition schedule premises is registered in the karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and Rules. Further he has admitted in his evidence that he is a sales tax and income-tax assessee and he has submitted returns to the said authorities is bound to maintain the records. The said documents are deliberately withheld by him from producing the same before the Trial Court, stating that he has not maintained any documents. For these reasons also this Court has to hold that the findings recorded by the Trial Court on point 3 under Section 21 (l) (f) cited supra is erroneous in law for non-consideration of legal evidence on record and therefore, this Court has to record a finding holding that the premises has been subleased by the tenant in favour of Ramkumar Jindal without the knowledge and consent of the landlords. Therefore, the landlords must succeed on this ground also in the eviction petition. ( 19 ) FOR the reasons stated supra, the petition of the landlords or. the ground of Section 21 (l) (f) is required to be allowed. For the reasons stated supra the H. R. R. P. filed by the tenant is dismissed. Petition filed by the landlords on the ground under Section 21 (1 ) (f) of the Act is allowed after setting aside the findings recorded by the Trial Court on point 3 regarding sublease under Section 21 (l) (f) of the Act and allow the H. R. C. petition on this ground also. Petition filed by the landlords on the ground under Section 21 (1 ) (f) of the Act is allowed after setting aside the findings recorded by the Trial Court on point 3 regarding sublease under Section 21 (l) (f) of the Act and allow the H. R. C. petition on this ground also. ( 20 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly this Court has recorded a finding on contentious point 3 regarding sublease and held that the tenant has subleased the shop in favour of Ramkumar, therefore, it would be proper and appropriate in the interest of justice to grant 4 months time for him from today for vacating and delivering vacant possession of the premises to the landlords, subject to the condition that an undertaking is filed within two weeks from today, by the tenant stating that the premises shall be vacated and handed over to the landlords immediately after expiry of 4 months time granted by this Court and continue to pay monthly rents regularly as and when it falls due for payment. --- *** --- .