ORDER N. Ananda , J.—This revision petition is filed against the eviction order passed under Section 27(2)(a) and 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act'). I have heard Sri. V.B. Shiva Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. N.V. Manjunath, learned Counsel appearing for respondent. 2. The learned Trial Judge, accepting the case of respondent-landlord that schedule premises is required for using the same as a godown for novelty business carried on by respondent-landlord in Taragpet has allowed the petition under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act. The learned Trial Judge has rejected the contention of tenant that alternate suitable premises was available to landlord, and he had let out the same for enhanced rent. The learned Trial Judge has held that petitioner was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. from April 2011 to July 2011 and directed to pay rent within 30 days from the date of the order failing which the tenant shall vacate and handover vacant possession of petition schedule premises in favour of petitioner. 3. Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has made the following submissions: The suit schedule premises is a shop which is a part of shopping complex consisting of four floors and each floor having four shops. The tenants of other shops in the complex had vacated shops in their occupation. The landlord did not choose to occupy the shops. On the other hand, he had let out shops which had fallen vacant at higher rents. The landlord has not proved his requirement; the landlord has not pleaded non-availability of suitable premises. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent-landlord would submit that petitioner has committed default in payment of rent; petitioner has been carrying on business in novelties in a rented premises at Taragpet. The schedule premises is required for being used as a godown to store novelty items. The son of petitioner had joined petitioner in his business. Therefore, his business is under expansion. 5. The learned Trial Judge, on appreciation of evidence has held that petitioner has proved his requirement. The learned Trial Judge has held that schedule premises is situate in the first floor. Therefore, respondent-landlord has thought fit to use it as a godown. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the shops which had fallen vacant in the ground floor were suitable for occupation of landlord. 6. The learned Trial Judge has held that schedule premises is situate in the first floor. Therefore, respondent-landlord has thought fit to use it as a godown. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the shops which had fallen vacant in the ground floor were suitable for occupation of landlord. 6. Under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act, petitioner has to prove the requirement of premises and he has to prove non-availability of suitable premises. 7. Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned Counsel for petitioner would submit that in the eviction petition, it is not pleaded that petitioner does not have other suitable premises. During evidence of respondent-landlord, it is brought on record that other shops in the complex had fallen vacant and respondent has let out the same at higher rents. 8. It is seen from evidence of respondent that shops which had fallen vacant are situate in the ground floor. If respondent had thought fit to occupy schedule premises (which is in the I floor) for being used as a godown, it cannot be said that the shops which had fallen vacant in the ground floor were suitable for occupation of respondent-landlord. Even otherwise, respondent-landlord is the best Judge regarding suitability of premises, unless it is established from the evidence on record that other premises which had fallen vacant have same advantages and disadvantages as that of schedule premises. Therefore submission of learned Counsel for petitioner cannot be accepted. 9. Under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act, respondent-landlord is not required to prove bona fides and reasonableness of his requirement. The requirement has to be proved like any other fact. If petition filed under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act is accompanied by verifying affidavit, the Court has to raise a presumption in favour of the landlord. The tenant has to rebut such presumption. The tenant has not proved the contra. The learned Trial Judge, on appreciation of evidence has held that respondent was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. from April 2011 to July 2011. This finding has not been challenged before this Court. Therefore, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order. As the tenant has been carrying on business in schedule premises, I deem it proper to grant him reasonable time to deliver vacant possession to landlord. In the result, the petition is dismissed. This finding has not been challenged before this Court. Therefore, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order. As the tenant has been carrying on business in schedule premises, I deem it proper to grant him reasonable time to deliver vacant possession to landlord. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The order of eviction passed by the Trial Court is confirmed. The petitioner-tenant is granted six months time from today to vacate and handover vacant possession of schedule premises to respondent-landlord, subject to condition that he shall pay rents regularly. If petitioner-tenant were to commit default in payment of rent, the benefit of time granted in this order stands revoked.