( 1 ) THE petitioner-landlord questions the validity and correctness of the order dated 7-8-2000 passed by the court-below in HRRP 130/99 setting ,aside the order of eviction dated 1-9-1999 passed by the I Addl Civil Judge (Jr Dn) Mangalore in H R C 175/95 and dismissing the eviction petition filed by her against the respondent tenant ( 2 ) THE petitioner purchased the petition premises along with the appurtenant land from its previous owner one Edward John Quardross on 6-8-1983 The respondent-tenant was inducted into the petition premises by the said Edward John Quardross on 1-11-1976 and he continued to be tenant under the petitioner The petitioner filed the eviction petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises were required by her son and also on the ground that the tenant had secured a suitable alternate accommodation It was further her case that the tenant has built an additional room and also put up a permanent shed adjoining the said room She sought for eviction of tenant on all these grounds The trial court allowed the petition filed under Sec 21 (1) (h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (repealed Act for short) Being aggrieved, the tenant went up in revision before the court-below and the court-below set aside the order of eviction passed under See 21 (1) (h) and (p) and dismissed the eviction petition in to Aggrieved by the dismissal of the eviction petition, the present revision is filed by the landlord ( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel on both sides ( 4 ) THE courts-below have recorded divergent findings touching the plea of self requirement of the premises by the landlord and the alleged acquisition of alternate premises by the respondent-tenant While the case as pleaded by the petitioner on these grounds found favour with the rent court, the first revisional court declined to accept the case of the landlord The need urged by the petitioner landlady is the need of her son and not of her own Her son at the time of filing the petition who was doing the M B B S Course in K M C Medical College, Mangalore The case as set up by the petitioner that she required the premises for the use of her son has not been denied or disputed by the respondent The fact of her son doing his M B B S course from the K M C Medical College, Mangalore was also not disputed by the respondent The challenge to the eviction petition was presented by the respondent mainly on the ground that petitioners son is conveniently staying with his grand-mother in their ancestral house It is also an admitted fact that during the pendency of the proceedings before the court-below the mother of the petitioner died and the petitioners son continues to reside in the ancestral house It has been informed at the Bar that as of now the petitioners son has completed his M B B S degree and is pursuing his post graduation from K M C Medical College, Mangalore and continues to be a resident of Mangalore and that the requirement as pleaded by the petitioner has not been eclipsed by the subsequent events The court-below went by the logic that the need as perceived by the petitioner lacks the element of must have and, therefore declined to accept the case of the petitioner This conclusion was reached by the court-below on the premise that the petitioners son is conveniently staying in his grand-mothers house and that there is no demand from any quarter asking him to leave that house. ( 5 ) THE question that arises for my consideration in the context of these admitted facts is whether the need of petitioners son as pleaded by the petitioner could be termed as a requirement with an element of must have to it or is it a mere desire It has come on record that four sons and four daughters were born to the mother of the petitioner and all of them are alive Each and every one of them would have a claim over the premises presently being occupied by the petitioners son It may be that none of them has asked him to leave so far, but it can never be said with certainty that such an eventuality would not arise in future It is most likely that sooner or later the legal representatives would stake their claim over the property or opt for a share in it by putting it on sale and in such an event the petitioners son would be left without any accommodation as he has no stakes in the said property to enable him to continue to occupy the said premises as of right, if things come to such a pass The question then to be answered is whether the courts should wait till such an eventuality takes place before permitting the petitioner to seek eviction of the premises owned by her It is not necessary nor is it a requirement of law that the man for whose benefit a premises is sought by its owner should virtually be on the road without a roof on his head before his requirement or need could be termed as having an element of must have to it The court-below has made much of the fact that neither the petitioner nor her husband stays in Mangalore This circumstance rather than assisting the respondent goes a long way in establishing the case of the petitioner If it were not to be for the benefit of her son, there was absolutely no reason at all for the petitioner to have invested such huge sum to purchase the house The fact that despite his son being allowed to stay in her mothers residence the petitioner chose to invest such huge money in purchasing a house for his occupation further reinforces the probability that one day or the other the petitioner expected that her son will be forced to leave that house This need as perceived by the petitioner and in order to satisfy which she had filed the petition against the respondent certainly has an element of must have to-it and such a requirement cannot be thwarted by merely referring to the fact that her son for whose benefit the petition premises are sought is conveniently residing in his grand-mothers house What is relevant to be noticed is that such stay by him in his grand-mothers house is without any attendant legal right It would be too much for a tenant to assume that he is liable to be evicted only when the landlord or his children are rendered homeless and it is only when they are without a roof over their head that, in law, their requirement should be construed by the courts as having an element of must have It is not difficult or rather impossible to visualise situations that would crop up and be prepared for them by making plans to absorb future shocks and that in fact is the way in which a human being is expected to live his life and no one can complain if in order to provide for the future stay of her son a person invests hard earned money and asks the tenant staying there to quit because her son requires it for himself No one can be compelled or forced to wait till the worst happens before he or she could stake a claim for something which lawfully it is open to them to seek even before such an eventuality taking place Examined on these lines, it would be preposterous to describe the requirement pleaded by the petitioner as a mere desire without the element of must have to it Therefore, I find that the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner by the court-below on the ground that it is a mere desire is liable to be set aside ( 6 ) WITH the repealing of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and the coming in to force of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 a new dimension is added to cases covered by clause (h) of See 21 (1) of the repealed Act which under the present Act is Sec 27 (2) (r) of the Act Explanation I to Sec 27 stipulates that for purposes of this clause (clause r ) and Sections 28 to 31, (i) where the landlord in his application supported by an affidavit submits that the premises are required by him for occupation for himself or for any member of ,his family dependent on him, the Court shall presume that the premises are so required, (ii) When there is a prescription in law under the explanation-I (i) to Sec 27 that when a requirement pleaded by a landlord is supported by an affidavit it has to be presumed by the court that the petition premises is so required by the landlord, it is my considered opinion that it is needless for the court to examine the requirement pleaded with a magnifying glass to try and find out whether such requirement is a mere desire or a requirement with an element of must have to it Such an exercise in the present scenario is uncalled for because the court is under a statutory duty to draw a presumption in favour of the requirement pleaded by the landlord With the advent of the present Act, the court is saved the trouble which it hitherto was required to undertake to shift through the evidence and analyze it in order to determine the nature of requirement ie, whether it is merely fanciful or concrete and whether it is a mere desire or an absolute need Suffice it for the purpose of granting an order under See 27 (2) (r) of the Act, if the landlord shows to the satisfaction of the court that there is a need for him to occupy the premises and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation In the case on hand, the accommodation in the house of his grand-mother that is available to him now cannot be taken as one that would always be available to him as of right and given the fact that he could be asked to leave the said house at any moment and his stay there being purely gratis and depending as it is on the grace of his relatives, it cannot be construed in law as a reasonably suitable accommodation disentitling the petitioner from claiming the relief of recovery of possession of the petition premises from the respondent-tenant for the benefit of her son Therefore, it is, the finding recorded by the court-below to the contrary on misinterpretation of facts and misapplication of law calls for interference under Sec 115 C P C ( 7 ) IN so far as the other ground under Clause (p) of Section 27 (2) of the Act is concerned, the tenant is liable to be evicted only when he acquires vacant possession of another residence The material on record does not satisfactorily indicate that the tenant has built, acquired or come into possession of any other residence. Therefore, that finding of the Court below stands. ( 8 ) IN the present case, the premises were sought by the mother for the residence of the son who was pursuing his studies. Now he has completed his studies and be is doing his Post Graduation in Medicine The need propounded by the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition has not been eclipsed and on the other hand, the need has become enlarged because as the next logical step in his life he would marry and beget children and therefore he would require a suitable accommodation in future The need for accommodation that arose when he started his course in Medicine is yet to be fructified and such a need cannot be pushed to the backburner and the petitioner made to wait still more because of the slow litigative process that our legal system is mitred in. ( 9 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, the Revision Petition is allowed and the respondent - tenant is directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the premises within three months from today. --- *** --- .