ORDER : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner in HRC 3/2014 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. She sought eviction of the respondents from the residential premises bearing No. 124/1 in property No.124, situated at Sri Dharmarayaswamy Temple Cross Road, Nagarthpet, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 32.7’ and North to South 23.9’, i.e., 773.84 square feet (hereinafter referred to as ‘schedule premises’). The petitioner stated that the respondents are the tenants in respect of the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.375/. The petitioner required the said premises for her own use. She is staying in a rented premises on a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/. She has a married son and another son of marriageable age. The rented house in which she is staying is situate opposite to the schedule premises. There is no good understanding between her and her daughter-in-law and therefore she wants to shift her residence to the schedule premises. On 25.8.2008 she issued a notice terminating the tenancy. Thereafter, she instituted original suit O.S.245/2009 for evicting the respondents. The plaint in the said suit was ordered to be returned as the original suit in the city civil court was not maintainable as it did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Then, the petitioner represented the plaint in the court of Small Causes where the suit was numbered as S.C.1596/2011. In the Small Causes Court respondents appeared and filed written statement contending that even that suit was not maintainable in view of the schedule premises being a residential one though situated in a commercial area. This was the reason for the petitioner to institute proceedings under Karnataka Rent Act. 2. The respondents did not appear in the court below. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner adduced evidence as PW1 in the capacity of power of attorney holder of the petitioner. He produced six documents as per Exs. P1 to P6. After assessing the evidence, the court below arrived at a conclusion that merely because the respondents were placed exparte, the petitioner could not walk away with the decree unless her case is established by producing cogent and satisfactory material. To arrive at this conclusion the trial court has expressed an opinion that the petitioner has not proved the cause of action to seek eviction of the respondents. To arrive at this conclusion the trial court has expressed an opinion that the petitioner has not proved the cause of action to seek eviction of the respondents. It has also given reasons that the petitioner issued notice to the respondents on 25.8.2008 and she instituted the petition for eviction after lapse of five years. It is also observed that though the petitioner makes a reference to SC 1596/2011 and O.S.245/2009, she has not stated about the out come in these two suits. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to prove her case. 3. I have perused the documents produced by the petitioner which are marked as Exs. P1 to P6. The petitioner is stated to be the absolute owner of the schedule property. She has produced absolute sale deed dated 15.5.2004 marked as Ex.P2. Ex.P3 is the encumbrance certificate. Ex.P4 is the written statement filed by the respondents in O.S.245/2009. If the said written statement is read, it appears that the respondents being the defendants in the suit took up a contention that the landlords of the schedule premises was M/s Raja Silk House (P) Limited. If Ex.P2 is perused what becomes clear is that M/s Raja Silk House (P) Limited sold the property to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner became the absolute owner. If according to the respondents there was no attornment of tenancy in their favour, it should have contested the eviction proceeding. Rather they chose not to contest. Therefore, the assertion of the petitioner that she is the landlord becomes acceptable and it has remained unassailed. The trial court should have come to this conclusion. 4. The petitioner sought eviction of the respondents under section 27 (2) (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act. She wants the schedule premises for her own use and occupation. She stated that she has a married son and another son to be married. She has also stated that there is no good relationship between her and her daughter-in-law and therefore she wants to live in the schedule premises which is situated opposite to the rented house where she is residing presently. The trial court was expected to assess the petitioner’s requirement in this background. The trial court has rather observed that the petitioner has not given details as to the result in O.S.245/2009 and SC 1596/2011. The trial court was expected to assess the petitioner’s requirement in this background. The trial court has rather observed that the petitioner has not given details as to the result in O.S.245/2009 and SC 1596/2011. It appears that the trial court has not drawn its attention to paras 5 and 6 of the petition. In these paragraphs it is stated that after the respondents filed written statement in O.S.1596/2011 the said suit came to be disposed of. Therefore, the petitioner had to institute proceedings under the provisions of the Rent Act. It may be true that the petitioner has not produced certified copies of the order sheets in O.S.245/2009 and S.C.1596/2011, but it cannot be a reason for dislodging the petitioner’s claim. 5. With regard to the notice dated 25.8.2008, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said notice was issued prior to filing O.S.245/2009 and it has nothing to do with the eviction proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act. The said submission has some force. There was no need to disbelieve the case of the petitioner holding that the petition had been instituted after a lapse of five years. Without noticing the pendency of O.S.245/2009 and SC 1596/2011, the court below should not have taken this view. When the petitioner has clearly stated that the schedule premises is required for her own use; as it has remained unchallenged and there is no material to take a contrary view, the court below ought to have come to conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to claim eviction. In this view, the impugned judgment of the trial court is not sustainable. Therefore, the following order : (a) Petition is allowed. (b) The impugned judgment is set aside. (c) The petition filed under section 27 (2) (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act is allowed. (d) The respondents are hereby directed to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.