ORDER This is a revision petition filed under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Ace), being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the eviction petition filed by the landlord in H.R.C. No. 1922 of 1996. 2. Landlord filed an eviction petition initially under Section 21(1)(a), (b), (f), (h), (0) and (p) of the Act contending that tenant was in arrears of rent from February 1995 and that he had made material alterations to the property without the consent of the landlord and the premises was utilised for the purpose other than for which it was let out and that he has subleased the property. The landlord further contended that the petition premises is required by himself to accommodate his nephew. The petition was resisted by the tenant on all grounds. The Trial Court after enquiry held that the tenant is not in arrears of rent and negatived all the contentions of the landlord, thereby dismissing the eviction petition. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard Counsel for the respective parties. 4. It is the submission of the Counsel appearing for the landlord that a legal right has been accrued to him by the provisions of Section 31(1)(c) to seek for eviction as he has become a senior citizen during the pendency of the petition and that he requires the premises to accommodate his nephew Sri Manjunath who is residing with him and who intends to start a business in the petition premises and to support his contention, he had produced the ration card and other related documents. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the tenant has submitted that the Trial Court having considered all the aspects· on merits, has opined that as the nephew does not come within the meaning of the family for whose benefit eviction is sought, petition cannot be allowed and also further submitted that when the landlord has not proved his bona fides under Section 27(2)(1'), the Trial Court was right in rejecting the petition without going into other provisions,' accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. Now let me consider whether the Trial Court has committed any error in passing the impugned order and whether the landlord is entitled for eviction as sought for. 6. Now let me consider whether the Trial Court has committed any error in passing the impugned order and whether the landlord is entitled for eviction as sought for. It is well-settled that during the pendency of the case in a judicial proceeding, if there is any change in the legal position or any new provision is introduced, that enures to the benefit of the parties. So, it is needless to say that the petitioner can very well-invoke the provisions of Section 31(1)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Section 31(1)(c) envisages that a person who is aged 65 years or more and if a premises is let out by him, of which he has sought for eviction for the bona fide use and occupation of either himself or his family or for anyone who is living with him or her, he may appeal to the Court. 7. In the instant case, it is noted that the landlord had sought eviction for the purpose of his nephew and also had produced a ration card as a proof of the fact that the nephew resides with him. Nothing has been placed on record by the tenant to show that there are other eviction petitions filed against other tenants by the landlord invoking special provision on the similar set of facts. In that view of the matter, the application filed under Section 31(1)(c) is to be allowed. Accordingly, petition is also allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The tenant shall handover vacant possession of the premises to the landlord within one year from today. Parties to bear their own costs.