ORDER A.S. BOPANNA, J.-The petitioner herein is assailing the order dated 28.05.2008 passed in HRCR No. 9/2006. By the said order, the Revisional Court has reversed the order passed by the eviction Court in HRC No. 23/2000 dated 12.10.2006. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order, would contend that the learned Judge of the Revision Court has committed a serious error in setting aside the eviction order on other grounds and limiting it only to eviction under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act. It is contended that, in the instant case, the eviction petition was initially instituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, and subsequently, on coming into force of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the provisions applicable to the present Act have been taken note of and the petition has been amended to bring it under Section 27(2) (e) and (f) and Sections 30 & 32 of the said Act. The matter was accordingly proceeded with and the eviction Court, after taking note of the contentions put forth by the petitioners with regard to the requirement of the premises for reconstruction and also for self-occupation, had ordered eviction of the respondent who were the tenants therein. It is contended that the revision Court while upsetting the said order of the eviction Court has proceeded at a tangent with regard to consideration of the evidence which had been tendered before the eviction Court and also with regard to the plan for reconstruction and the provisions available to the petitioner to seek benefit of eviction as contemplated under Sections 30 & 31 of the Act. It is, therefore, contended that the order of the revision Court is liable to be set aside and the order of eviction Court is to be restored. 3. In the light of the contention put forth, I have perused both the orders passed by the eviction Court on 12.10.2006 in HRC No. 23/2000 and by the revision Court on 28.05.2008 in HRCR No. 9/2006. In addition, the records received from the Court below are also perused before considering the contentions put forth. In this regard, it is to be noticed that before the eviction Court, the petitioner had examined himself as P.W.1and the documents at Exs.P. 1 to P.20 were marked. Respondents, no doubt, were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and documents R1 to R7 were marked. In this regard, it is to be noticed that before the eviction Court, the petitioner had examined himself as P.W.1and the documents at Exs.P. 1 to P.20 were marked. Respondents, no doubt, were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and documents R1 to R7 were marked. In the instant facts, two contentions had been urged by the petitioners, one to state that the building was more than 70 to 80 years old and, therefore, the same requires reconstruction after demolition, and secondly, it was contended that the petitioner, who is employed is residing in the quarters at T.B. Dam and since he is required to vacate the same, he would, thereafter, occupy the premises in question. The eviction Court on taking note of the said evidence has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner has proved the contention which had been put forth and, therefore, it is not necessary to advert to further details therein. 4. However, the Revision Court while setting aside the order of the eviction Court, on the first point, has held that the petitioner has not proved that the building is in a dilapidated condition by either producing any document or by adducing any evidence in that regard to show that it required demolition. Secondly, it is held that the plea put forth under Section 30 is not supported by an affidavit so as to raise presumption in favour of the petitioner. In view of the said finding, a perusal in that regard would disclose that the revision Court, in fact, has taken too technical a view of the matter. Firstly, with regard to the requirement of demolition and reconstruction, as stated by the petitioner, was in view of the fact that the petitioner contended that the building is more than 70 to 80 years old and it is not that it is in a dilapidated condition. With regard to demolition and reconstruction to be made, plans had been produced for the said purpose. The question as to whether it should be held that the building is in a dilapidated condition did not arise in the instant case. With regard to demolition and reconstruction to be made, plans had been produced for the said purpose. The question as to whether it should be held that the building is in a dilapidated condition did not arise in the instant case. It is not the contention of the petitioner that any authority has directed the petitioner to demolish because of the dangerous existence of the building, but it is the intention of the petitioner himself to demolish the old building and thereafter put up new construction so as to reside therein. Therefore, in the circumstances, when it is pleaded that the building is more than 70 to 80 years old and when the respondent were also residing in the said premises for a very long period, certainly, the case put forth by the petitioner would have to be accepted insofar as the condition of the building. In any event, in order to establish that he intends to put up construction a plan has been produced. The revisional Court could not have disbelieved the said contention merely because the petitioner has not examined any Engineer to speak with regard to cost of construction or produce documents with regard to loan to be obtained from the Bank. 5. In the present facts, when it had been established by the evidence that the building is an old one and construction is to be made, the question which should have engaged the attention of the revision Court is as to whether the petitioner was in requirement of the premises for self-occupation. Even if that issue relating to demolition and reconstruction had not been satisfactorily proved, in that regard, the fact that the petitioner is employed and was residing in the quarters of the employer is not seriously in dispute. However, to disallow the contention in that regard by raising presumption, the revision Court has mainly arrived at the conclusion that such presumption could be raised only if the plea is supported by an affidavit. In the instant case, the revision Court is of the view that the petition had been amended to bring it in conformity with the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, but no affidavit had been filed. In the instant case, the revision Court is of the view that the petition had been amended to bring it in conformity with the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, but no affidavit had been filed. In order to consider this aspect of the matter, a perusal of the records received from the Court below would indicate that the amendment to the petition had been sought by filing I.A. No. 8. It is in the said application, amendment which was proposed to add the benefit under Section 30 which was available to the petitioner to seek eviction of the respondent was made therein. The said application is supported by an affidavit. A perusal of the said affidavit would indicate that the petitioner has specifically stated that all averments made in the petition are also supported thereto. Therefore, in such circumstances, when the amendment sought to be incorporated has been stated by relying upon Section 30 of the Act and when the same is supported by an affidavit and when the said application had been allowed and the amendment was made to the petition, it would have to be accepted that it was supported by an affidavit and one more affidavit ought not to have been expected by the revision Court. Therefore, if these aspects are kept in view, I am of the opinion that the Revision Court was not justified in taking such a technical view while reversing the findings rendered by the eviction Court. 6. Therefore, keeping this aspect in view, I am of the opinion that the order dated 28.05.2008 passed in HRCR No. 9/2006 is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. Consequent thereto, the order dated 12.10.2006 passed in HRC No. 23/2000 is upheld. The respondents are granted three months' time from this day to vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition premises to the petitioner. The petition is allowed in the above terms.