ORDER : The respondent in HRC No. 11047/2013 on the file of XV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo hall Unit, Bengaluru (SCCH.19), has come up in this revision petition impugning the judgment dated 11.03.2016. 2. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is the tenant and respondent herein is the landlady of a corner shop in the cellar portion of the property bearing No. 135/2, Garden Restaurant Buildings near Jyothinivas College, 5th block, Koramangala, Bengaluru. The proceedings in HRC No. 10047/2013 were initiated by the landlady under Section 27(2) and (r) read with Section 31(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking eviction of the respondent therein, who is revision petitioner in this proceedings, from the petition schedule premises. 3. The material on record would indicate that the respondent in the eviction petition is tenant in respect of the aforesaid shop from 29.11.1982 on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. Initially, he was tenant under K.M. Venkatappa, father-in-law of the petitioner - landlady. The records would disclose that a sum of Rs.8,000/- was deposited by respondent - tenant as refundable security deposit. Subsequently, after the death of said K.M. Venkatappa, he has continued as statutory tenant of the petition premises by paying rent to the petitioner - landlady through money order. It is stated that from March 2013, he has not paid the rent till the date of filing of the eviction petition. 4. It is seen that after the death of petitioner’s father-in-law, K.M. Venkatappa, his son, Padmanabhaiah, continued to be owner of the petition premises. After the expiry of Padmanabhaiah on 25.07.2000, petitioner - landlady and her children have become the owners of the petition premises by virtue of succession. It is seen that for the sake of convenience, the petition premises is standing in the name of the petitioner and she has sought eviction of the respondent – tenant from the same for the need of her daughter, who is one of the co-owners having subsisting interest in the petition schedule premises since it is the property of her grandfather, K.M. Venkatappa. 5. In the proceedings before the eviction Court, relationship of landlady and tenant between petitioner and respondent is not in dispute. Possession of the respondent – tenant with reference to the petition premises so also the rate of rent and advance amount are not in dispute. 5. In the proceedings before the eviction Court, relationship of landlady and tenant between petitioner and respondent is not in dispute. Possession of the respondent – tenant with reference to the petition premises so also the rate of rent and advance amount are not in dispute. The respondent – tenant has denied the claim of the petitioner– landlady that she requires the petition premises to accommodate her daughter to set up a dental clinic on the ground that she has alternate accommodation for the said purpose and that he would be put to hardship if he has to shift his real estate business from the petition premises. 6. In the eviction proceedings, both parties have led evidence. Based on the material available on record including Exs.P9 and P10, notarized copies of certificates, originals of which were made available before the Court below as noted in para No.15 of the judgment impugned, evidencing that the daughter of petitioner-landlady, Dr. K.P. Roopashree, has completed her Bachelor of Dental Surgery and she has registered herself as Dentist under the Dentists Act, 1948, the Court below by judgment dated 01.12.2014, has allowed the petition under Section 27(2) and (r) of the Act and ordered eviction of the respondent - tenant from the petition schedule premises. Being aggrieved by the same, the tenant has come up in this revision petition. 7. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that eviction petition filed by respondent – landlady on the ground that the same is required for the benefit of her daughter, cannot be entertained since respondent’s daughter is already married and she is not dependent on respondent. 8. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and respondent. Perused the entire lower Court records, which contain the petition for eviction, statement of objections filed therein, the evidence recorded on behalf of the parties as also the earlier orders passed by the Court below, which were subject matter of earlier two revision petitions before this Court in HRRP No. 114/2014 and HRRP No. 20/2015, disposed of on 28.11.2014 on 07.04.2015 respectively. The records would disclose that right from 1982, revision petitioner - tenant has been somehow procrastinating the proceedings in the eviction petition in order to continue in possession of the petition premises eternally. From 1982, his possession and enjoyment of the petition shop is not disturbed. The records would disclose that right from 1982, revision petitioner - tenant has been somehow procrastinating the proceedings in the eviction petition in order to continue in possession of the petition premises eternally. From 1982, his possession and enjoyment of the petition shop is not disturbed. The respondent - landlady has not even bothered to seek enhancement of rent and it is only when her daughter, who is also co-owner of the petition premises, needed the same to set up a dental clinic, she sought for eviction of the revision petitioner – tenant from the petition premises. In that regard, landlady has produced Certificates as per Exs.P9 and 10 to show that her daughter has completed her B.D.S., course and she has got registered herself as a dental practitioner. The tenant has come up in this revision impugning the order of eviction passed by the Court below by taking several unreasonable grounds. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, to substantiate his contentions, has relied upon the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of: Koyilerian Janaki and others v. Rent Controller (Munsiff), Cannanore and others ((2000) 9 Supreme Court Cases 406)); Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta ( AIR 1999 SC 2507 ) and K.N. Anantharaja Gupta v. D.V. Usha Vijaykumar ( AIR 2008 SC 539 ). He has also relied upon the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rehman Khan v. Siddagangamma (2012 (6) KLJ 316). 10. On going through the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court, it is seen that the principles enunciated therein do not apply to the facts of the case. In the instant case, though the respondent - landlady has filed the eviction petition contending that she is the owner of the petition premises, admittedly, the same was the property of her father-in-law, Sri K.M. Venkatappa, who is grandfather of her daughter, for whose benefit the vacant possession of the petition premises is sought from the revision petitioner – tenant. In this background, it is clearly seen that the daughter of the respondent - landlady is also co-owner of the property and as such, the petition, which is filed by the respondent herein is not for the benefit of someone, who has no right to seek eviction. In this background, it is clearly seen that the daughter of the respondent - landlady is also co-owner of the property and as such, the petition, which is filed by the respondent herein is not for the benefit of someone, who has no right to seek eviction. Consequently, the finding rendered in the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Koyilerian Janaki (supra) to the effect that landlady is not entitled to seek eviction of tenant for the benefit of her family members unless she pleads and substantiates that they are dependent on her does not apply to the instant case in as much as the person to whose benefit, vacant possession of the petition premises is sought, is also a co-owner of the same. 11. The Apex Court, in the matter of Shiva Sarup Gupta (supra), while considering the revisional jurisdiction of High Court under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act and the grounds of eviction under Section 14 of the said Act with reference to the facts of the said case arising out of order of eviction passed by High Court in respect of a residential accommodation, has dismissed the appeal filed by tenant by granting him six months to vacate the premises. In the judgment in the case of K.N. Anantharaja Gupta (supra), the Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the tenant challenging the order of his eviction passed by the High Court holding that landlady required the petition premises, which is a residential premises, for herself and her children after demolition and reconstruction of the same. The Apex Court has held that before granting a decree for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, the Court below has to consider whether landlady has satisfied the conditions enumerated therein with reference to condition of suit premises, her capacity to undertake reconstruction and production of sanctioned plan. In the instant case, the property involved is a shop premises and person for whose benefit eviction sought is co-owner of the property. The fact situation in the present case being distinguishable from the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court, the question of entertaining this revision petition does not arise. 12. In the instant case, the property involved is a shop premises and person for whose benefit eviction sought is co-owner of the property. The fact situation in the present case being distinguishable from the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court, the question of entertaining this revision petition does not arise. 12. The contention of the revision petitioner – tenant that though respondent-landlady had other properties available, she did not choose to seek eviction of tenants in respect of the same and she has sought only eviction of the revision petitioner does not hold water for the reason that the choice as to which property should be used for her self occupation is left to the landlady. The Court below has observed that the respondent – tenant has not been successful in substantiating his contention that petitioner – landlady has suitable alternative accommodation for the purpose for which eviction of the petition premises is sought by her. Besides, the revision petitioner-tenant has no right to dictate terms to the landlady as to in which property, she should set up dental clinic of her daughter, who is a co-owner of the petition premises. When admittedly, other properties are fetching higher rent and the petition premises, which is in possession of the revision petitioner – tenant is providing least income, it is open for respondent - landlady to select as to in respect of which of the properties, she should seek eviction for the reason that besides seeking accommodation for setting-up dental clinic of her daughter, who is co-owner the petition premises, her other children are also required to be sustained on the rent that would be generated from the property. The revision petitioner - tenant does not have any manner of right to dictate as to which portion of the property the landlady should retain for her self occupation and he cannot also dictate that the property in his possession should not be disturbed. 13. In that view of the matter, this Court find that the order of eviction passed by the Court below is just and proper and does not call for any interference. In the instant case, when the petition for eviction was pending before the Court below, sufficient time was already granted to the respondent therein to look for alternative accommodation and to vacate the petition schedule premises in his possession. In the instant case, when the petition for eviction was pending before the Court below, sufficient time was already granted to the respondent therein to look for alternative accommodation and to vacate the petition schedule premises in his possession. The question of granting further time to the revision petitioner – tenant to vacate petition schedule premises does not arise for the reason that the need of the respondent - landlady to set up dental clinic of her daughter is more imminent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court feel that the revision petitioner – tenant is not entitled to further time for vacating the petition schedule premises while holding that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by respondent in HRC No. 10047/2013 is hereby dismissed with a direction to him to surrender the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondent – landlady forthwith.