ORDER : This revision petition is filed by the tenant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in HRC No.37/2015. 2. Briefly stated the facts are – the respondent herein sought for eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule premises invoking the provisions of Section 27(2) (a), (c), (g) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The respondent is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.4/1, S.K. Garden Main Road, Benson Town, Bengaluru measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 50 feet, totally measuring 1500/- sq.ft. It was the contention of respondent that the said suit property was left out to the petitioner to carry on business of STD/ISD telephone booth and for storage of cold items. It was further contended that the petitioner was irregular in payment of rent and had stopped the STD/ISD business and carrying on the business of bakery and condiments without the consent of petitioner. It was the main contention that the suit premises was required by the respondent for the purpose of starting business by her unemployed son to start a consultancy business. Hence, the respondent had requested the petitioner to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises. But the petitioner having not obliged, notice was issued. Despite service of notice, the petitioner had not vacated the schedule premises. Based on these factual grounds, the HRC petition was filed. On service of summons, the petitioner entered appearance and contested the mater. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court allowed the petition under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act directing the petitioner herein to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of petition premises to the respondent within four months from the date of order. However, the petition under Section 27(2)(a), (c) and (g) of the Act was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant is before this Court. 3. Sri. A.N. Gangadharaiah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment and order would contend that the suit property is not required for the bonafide use and occupation of the respondent. However, the shops in the same premises were vacant and the respondent has not opted to take those shops for the business of her son. 3. Sri. A.N. Gangadharaiah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment and order would contend that the suit property is not required for the bonafide use and occupation of the respondent. However, the shops in the same premises were vacant and the respondent has not opted to take those shops for the business of her son. He contends that this petition is filed by the respondent seeking eviction of the suit premises only with an oblique motive to harass the petitioner. The petitioner is running a condiment shop in the suit property and is regular in making payment of rents. The petitioner’s husband is suffering from heart ailment and her children are pursuing studies. They are eking out their livelihood from the business carried on in the said suit premises. In view of the alternate shops available to the respondent, there was no need to seek for bonafide use and occupation of her son. This vital aspect was not appreciated by the Court below in right perspective and the order directing the petitioner to vacate and handover the suit premises to the respondent within a period of four months from the date of order is causing hardship to the petitioner resulting in miscarriage of justice and accordingly, he seeks for setting aside the impugned judgment and order and to allow the revision petition. In support of his contention, learned Counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kempaiah Vs. Lingaiah and Others reported in (2001) 8 SCC 718 . 4. Per contra, Sri. N Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the son of respondent is a qualified graduate, but unemployed. The suit premises is very much required for starting a consultancy business by her son. The petitioner is a defaulter in paying rents. In such circumstances, appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court allowed the petition in part as far as Section 27(2)(r) of the Act is concerned, directing the petitioner to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of suit property, which cannot be found fault with. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the respondent is in bonafide need of the suit premises. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the respondent is in bonafide need of the suit premises. The bonafide need in ‘desire’ and ‘require’ are the expressions considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kempaiah, supra. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that although the element of need is present in both the cases i.e., ‘wish’ or ‘desire’ of the appellant to occupy the leased premises, but he failed to prove the reasonable bonafide requirement as contemplated under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Act. The word ‘require’ used in clause (h) of sub section (1) of Section 21 of the Act implies something more than a mere wish or impulse or desire on the part of the landlord. The real distinction between ‘desire’ or ‘require’ lies in the insistence of the need. The term ‘reasonable’ and ‘bonafide’ are complementary, which supplement to each other. 7. In the context, keeping in mind the dictum pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the factual matrix of the case is analyzed. The evidence of respondent herein establishes that the petition premises is required by the respondent and reasonable bonafide requirement is proved. It is not a mere desire of the respondent to get the premises vacated, but the bonafide requirement/need for her son to start consultancy business who is unemployed. Thus, the arguments advanced at the hands of learned Counsel for the petitioner that alternative shops which were vacant were not utilized by the respondent would not be a ground to reject the petition filed by the respondent since the same is proved for a bonafide requirement. Indisputably, at the time of filing of petition, no other alternative shops were vacant in the premises. Moreover, it is the wish and option of the landlord to pick and choose which property is suitable and convenient for her to start a business. 8. Given the circumstances, no ground is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order impugned herein. However, in the fitness of things, this Court directs the petitioner to quit, vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. However, in the fitness of things, this Court directs the petitioner to quit, vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. However, the petitioner shall continue to pay monthly rent of Rs.1,900/- and arrears of rents, if any. Petition is dismissed, accordingly.