ORDER N. Ananda , J.—This is a tenants revision petition against the order of eviction made under Section 27(2)(c) and 27(2)(r) and also under Section 31(1)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. I have heard Sri Shanth Kumar, learned Counsel for petitioners-tenants and Sri V.B. Shiva Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent-landlady. 2. The learned Counsel for petitioners-tenants would submit that the landlady has failed to prove that petition schedule premises is required for her occupation and use. The Trial Court has ignored the fact that petitioner and her sons have not chosen to occupy premises which have fallen vacant during pendency of eviction petition. The Trial Court has not recorded any finding regarding non-availability of suitable premises. The findings recorded by the Trial Court that petitioners-tenants have sub-let premises is contrary to evidence on record. The learned Trial Judge should not have been swayed away by the fact that the landlady is a senior citizen, in the absence of proof of requirement. 3. The learned Counsel for respondent would justify the impugned order. 4. The averments of eviction petition and the evidence adduced by respondent-landlady would disclose that eviction was sought on the ground that schedule premises is required for the use and occupation of P.W. 1-B. Mahaveer Chand (son of respondent). 5. P.W. 1 has stated that there are five shops in the ground floor of building, out of which, two shops are in occupation of his younger brother B. Ajit Kumar, the next shop is in occupation of a tenant viz., Kalu Singh, the other shop is in occupation by a tenant by name Ashok, who is running business in the name and style of 'Maa Bhavani Gifts'. P.W. 1 has deposed that two shops which are towards adjoining premises are vacant and let out by petitioner to tenants viz., Ashok and Kalu Singh on a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/-. 6. The learned Trial Judge has rejected availability of suitable premises having regard to evidence of P.W. 1 which would reveal that schedule premises is abutting the staircase; the landlady is residing in first floor and therefore, P.W. 1 could easily access to her house from schedule premises. Therefore, P.W. 1 has chosen this schedule shop for his business. 7. 6. The learned Trial Judge has rejected availability of suitable premises having regard to evidence of P.W. 1 which would reveal that schedule premises is abutting the staircase; the landlady is residing in first floor and therefore, P.W. 1 could easily access to her house from schedule premises. Therefore, P.W. 1 has chosen this schedule shop for his business. 7. On consideration of evidence of P.W. 1 and the reasons recorded by the Trial Court, it is not possible to hold that P.W. 1 had any ulterior motives for choosing the schedule premises. Above all, suitability or otherwise of premises is the choice of landlord, unless the choice is found to mala fide. Neither the Court, nor the tenant can dictate terms to landlord where and how he should carryon business. The evidence on record discloses that tenant had obtained schedule premises for starting business, which is a propriety concern. Now the petitioner-tenant has been carrying on business in contravention of terms of lease deed. 8. The Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence of parties has held that petitioner-tenant has not only sub-let the premises but also has changed the nature of premises. The Trial Court, taking into consideration that respondent-landlady is a senior citizen, has granted an order of eviction under Section 31(1)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act. 9. The learned Counsel for petitioners would submit that when the schedule premises is required by the son of landlady, she cannot be permitted to have avail benefit under Section 31(1)(c) of the Act. 10. This submission is contrary to the provisions of Section 31(1)(c), which reads as hereunder: 31. Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to a widow.--(1) Where the landlord is.-- (c) a person who is of the age of sixty-five years or more and the premises let out by him, is required for use by her or him or for her or his family or for any one for ordinarily living with her or him for use, she or he may apply to the Court for recovery of immediate possession of such premises. 11. The tenant has no case that P.W. 1 and landlady are living separately or that P.W. 1 is not a family member of respondent. In these circumstances, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed.