ORDER : H.P.SANDESH, J. This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for caveator-respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioners while invoking Section 27 (2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act is that the father of the respondents i.e., the petitioners herein was a tenant under petitioners with respect to AC sheet roofed house described in the schedule having been inducted as a tenant on 04.09.1994 and rent was Rs.400/- and petition schedule premises was let out for residential purpose. The plinth area of petition schedule premises is about 3 squares comprising a hall, a room, kitchen with a toilet situated outside the main structure. The walls of the petition schedule premises are of mud, which was initially intended to be a temporary construction i.e., to accommodate the members of the family of petitioners. After the construction was completed, the younger sister of the petitioners, for whom the petition schedule premises was actually meant was reluctant to move to that premises, in view of the plinth area is only 3 squares and the toilet located outside the house. At that time, father of the respondents namely Pyarejan approached the petitioners and requested them to let out the petition schedule premises, therefore, the schedule premises has been let out to Pyarejan for residential purpose. Pyarejan initially paid monthly rents, but after sometime, due to unfortunate accident of an electrical pole, situated outside the house collapsed and fell on his younger daughter (Mehrunnisa), Pyarejan stopped paying monthly rents. The petitioners did not insist on payment of rent due to unfortunate death of daughter of Pyarejan. The petitioners are not responsible for the occurrence of incident within the property i.e., fall of electricity pole on Mehrunnisa. 3. It is also contended that Pyarejan had filed O.S.No.2252/2000 seeking compensation against the petitioner No.1-Shivakumar and the said suit is partially decreed and R.F.A.No.1071/2008 and cross appeal filed against judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2252/2000 are pending for consideration. After the death of Mehrunnisa, daughter of Pyarejan, Pyarejan did not pay rent. After the death of Pyarejan, respondents also did not pay rent. During 2002, Pyarejan expired. Even after death of Pyarejan, respondents continued to remain in possession of schedule premises. The petitioners along with 12 members are residing in the house mentioned in the address of the cause title. After the death of Pyarejan, respondents also did not pay rent. During 2002, Pyarejan expired. Even after death of Pyarejan, respondents continued to remain in possession of schedule premises. The petitioners along with 12 members are residing in the house mentioned in the address of the cause title. The premises in which the petitioners are residing is not adequate for use and occupation. The petitioners require the petition schedule premises for their bonafide use and occupation. Hence, filed the petition contending that they are intending to demolish the existing structure and construct a residential house, so as to accommodate the family of petitioners in the petition schedule premises. 4. The said petition was resisted by filing statement of objection by the respondents contending that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition asserting ownership over the schedule premises. The respondents are not at all the tenants of the schedule premises and there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenants between the petitioners and respondents. It is contended that the petitioners are misleading and suppressing the material facts by filing petition only for escaping their liability of payment of death compensation regarding death of sister of respondents. The respondents have vacated the premises after the death of their sister. Question of payment of rent subsequent to death of their sister does not arise for the reason that respondents have vacated the premises very long back. It is also contended that father of the respondents namely Pyarejan filed O.S.No.2252/2000 seeking compensation against petitioner No.1-Shivakumar and KPTCL, which has been partly decreed and R.F.A.No.1071/2008 and Cross-appeal No.14/2009 filed challenging the judgment passed in O.S.No.2252/2000 are pending. During 2001 Pyarejan, father of the respondents expired, then respondents are possessing Site No.40 formed in Sy.No.47 of Kowdenahalli Village as owners. The respondents are possessing the schedule premises as legal representatives of Pyarejan. 5. Having considered the grounds urged in the petition as well as the objection statement, the Trial Court allowed the parties to lead evidence and the petitioners examined the first petitioner as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P18(a). On the other hand, the respondents examined the first respondent as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R15. On the other hand, the respondents examined the first respondent as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R15. The Trial Court having then considered the material on record regarding the jural relationship is concerned taken note of Ex.P10-notice issued by the very father of this respondent on 22.09.1997 before filing a suit claiming the compensation against the first petitioner and also KPTCL and also reply notice dated 13.10.1997 which was marked as Ex.P11 denying the compensation claimed against the owner i.e., first petitioner and also the judgment Ex.P12 is the copy of the judgment dated 09.04.2008 passed in O.S.No.2252/2000 directing the KPTCL and petitioner No.1-Shivakumar to pay Rs.83,000/- each with interest at the rate of 6% to the present respondents, who are the plaintiffs as compensation due to the death of Mehrunnisa, sister of present respondents. Ex.P13 is the copy of deposition of Pyarejan, son of Ibrahim dated 28.10.1997 recorded in P.Misc.No.930/1997 by Registrar, City Civil Court, Bangalore. Ex.P14 is the copy of deposition of Pyarejan, son of Ibrahim dated 09.03.2000 recorded in P.Misc.No.930/1997 by VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengalury in which Pyarejan stated that he is residing in a premises owned by respondent No.1 i.e., Shivakumar as a tenant. Ex.P15 is the copy of the amended plaint pertaining to O.S.No.2252/2000. 6. Having considered all these documents, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is no any dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties and there are material placed on record sufficient to come to a conclusion that the petitioners herein are the tenants, who have continued the premises after the death of original tenant i.e., Pyarejan. The Trial Court also having considered the material on record, comes to the conclusion that the petitioners have filed the petition seeking the relief under Section 27(2)(r) and also taken note of the fact that family is consisting of more than 12 members and they are in need of the petition schedule premises and the same is discussed in paragraph Nos.43 to 48 and comes to the conclusion that petition premises is required by the original owner and granted the relief of vacating of premises within four months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present revision petition is filed. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present revision petition is filed. 7. The main contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that there is no material before the Court with regard to proving of relationship between the parties and there is no agreement and for having paid rent also, no document is placed on record. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that there are number of documents placed before the Court i.e., notice issued by the BBMP to pay property tax, tax paid receipts, residential certificate and other documents are also placed before the Court and the same has not been considered by the Trial Court. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that when the ownership is not proved by the respondents herein, the question of granting any relief invoking Section 27 (2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act does not arise and it requires reconsideration. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the caveator- respondent Nos.1 and 2 would vehemently contend that though disputed the relationship between the petitioners and respondents, the very notice was issued long back in the year 2000 itself by the father of the petitioners herein admitting the jural relationship that he was a tenant. Even the suit was filed claiming compensation against the first petitioner in H.R.C.No.30/2021 and even relief is also granted awarding compensation of Rs.83,000/- and appeal is also filed before this Court and R.F.A. is also pending. The Trial Court having taken note of very admission on the part of the father of the petitioners herein issuing the legal notice in terms of Ex.P1 and denying the reply notice issued in terms Ex.P11 and also the judgment and decree, all these materials were taken note of by the Court with regard to the jural relationship and comes to the conclusion that there is no need to consider the relationship in view of the admission available on record. Regarding requirement is also concerned, taken note of the fact that family of the respondents consists of more than 12 members and building is in dilapidated condition and they require more extent of premises for their residence and they intend to demolish the petition schedule premises which is in the occupation of the respondents as tenant and to construct the new building for their own use and occupation which is discussed in paragraph No.48 of the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, it does not require admission of this matter. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the caveator-respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also considering the material on record and also the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, it is clear that eviction petition was filed on 10.11.2021 invoking Section 27 (2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act seeking for a judgment and decree directing the respondents to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of petition schedule premises. The very specific pleading of the petitioners before the Trial Court is also that the father of the petitioners herein was inducted in the year 1994 and thereafter, continued to pay rent and on account of sudden death in the family i.e., death of a daughter of original tenant i.e., Mehrunnisa, since electric pole fell on her, as a result, she succumbed to the injuries, he could not continue to pay the rent thereafter. Admittedly, the document clearly discloses that original tenant Pyarejan himself has caused legal notice to the first petitioner admitting that he was a tenant and also claimed the compensation on account of untimely death of his daughter one Mehrunnisa and suit is also filed and those documents are taken note of by the Trial Court and in the original suit itself categorically pleaded in O.S.No.2252/2000 that he is the tenant of the premises in which they are residing and also reply notice was given by the first petitioner denying the compensation that he is not liable to pay any compensation and also the fact that original suit ended in decreeing the suit is not in dispute and appeal is also pending before this Court in R.F.A.No.1071/2008. All these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court and the respondents took the defence of no jural relationship. 10. Having considered the material on record that there was an admission on the part of the original tenant, who is none other than the father of the first petitioner herein and also taken note of Exs.P10 and P11, copy of the judgment Ex.P12, copy of the deposition of Pyarejan in P. Misc.No.930/1997 which is marked as Ex.P13 and also Ex.P14 and copy of the amendment Ex.P15 and deposition recorded in O.S.No.2252/2000. All these materials were taken note of and also original owner relied upon Hakku Patra Serial No.5075 dated 25.01.1993 is also marked. All these materials were taken note of and also original owner relied upon Hakku Patra Serial No.5075 dated 25.01.1993 is also marked. Having considered all these material, comes to the conclusion that relationship is established and also having taken note of the evidence of the respondents herein, who has been examined as R.W.1, he categorically deposed in line of the pleading which was made in the petition and also relying upon the documents, comes the conclusion that petitioner i.e., respondents are need of petition schedule premises for their bonafide use and occupation. When such being the material on record which are considered by the Trial Court, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that material available on record establishes the jural relationship as well as requirement. 11. It is also important to note that original tenant i.e., father of the first petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the year 1994 and other petitioner is also a daughter of Pyarejan. When such being the material on record, when father himself had filed a case against the original owner in the earlier suit claiming compensation, question of disputing jural relationship does not arise. The very contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that no document is placed on record regarding rental agreement and also having paid the rent also does not arise, since there is a categorical admission on the part of the original owner Pyarejan and admitted fact need not be proved and also when the petitioners not dispute the fact that family is consisting of 12 members and the same is also taken note of by the Trial Court. Under the circumstances, it is not a case for admitting the petition, since the petitioners are squatting on the property from the year 1994 i.e., more than 30 years. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and consider the petition. 12. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The revision petition is dismissed. (ii) However, taking note of the factual aspects, it is appropriate to grant three months time to the petitioners to vacate the premises and handover the same to the respondents. If the petitioners fail to vacate the premises within three months from today, the respondents are given liberty to get the possession in accordance with law.