Bona fide landlord requirement and alternative accommodation tests governed eviction, while belated amendment and evidence requests were rejected.

Bona fide landlord requirement was upheld where family need, limited accommodation, and comparative hardship supported eviction; the tenant's claim of an available alternative was unconvincing, and partial eviction was found impractical. A separate ground based on acquisition of suitable alternative premises failed because there was no clear proof that the tenant had constructed premises fit for the same engineering business. Belated requests to amend objections and adduce additional evidence were rejected for inconsistency with the existing record and lack of due diligence. The trial court's common order was left undisturbed, with eviction sustained on the bona fide requirement ground and denied on the alternative accommodation ground.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the landlords established a reasonable and bona fide requirement for eviction under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, and whether comparative hardship and partial eviction warranted interference; (ii) Whether eviction was justified under Section 21(1)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 on the ground that the tenant had acquired suitable alternative premises; (iii) Whether the tenant's applications for amendment of objections and for additional evidence deserved to be allowed.

Issue (i): Whether the landlords established a reasonable and bona fide requirement for eviction under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, and whether comparative hardship and partial eviction warranted interference.

Analysis: The need pleaded was examined with reference to the family circumstances, the divorced daughter, the aged and ailing mother, the growing needs of the family, and the limited accommodation available in the premises. The existence of another portion in occupation of a third party was not proved in a manner sufficient to defeat the claim. The evidence also supported the conclusion that the family requirement had not become unreal merely because one member died during the proceedings. On hardship, the tenant's effort to show an equally suitable alternative was found unconvincing. Partial eviction was considered neither practical nor feasible in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The requirement under Section 21(1)(h) was held to be reasonable and bona fide, comparative hardship favoured the landlords, and partial eviction was not warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether eviction was justified under Section 21(1)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 on the ground that the tenant had acquired suitable alternative premises.

Analysis: The materials showed acquisition of a vacant site, but not reliable proof that the tenant had put up a building suitable for carrying on the same engineering business. The evidence on construction and suitability was not clinching. The statutory ground therefore remained unestablished on the record.

Conclusion: Eviction under Section 21(1)(p) was not proved and the refusal of relief on that ground was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the tenant's applications for amendment of objections and for additional evidence deserved to be allowed.

Analysis: The proposed amendment was inconsistent with the evidence already on record and was sought belatedly. The request for additional evidence also failed the test of due diligence, as the tenant had knowledge of the relevant facts during trial but did not secure the material earlier.

Conclusion: Both applications were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The common order of the trial court was left undisturbed, with eviction sustained on the ground under Section 21(1)(h) and denied on the ground under Section 21(1)(p), and the revisions stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A landlord's claim of bona fide requirement is to be judged on the need existing on the date of the petition, while eviction on the ground of alternative accommodation requires clear proof that the tenant has acquired a building suitable for the same business; belated procedural requests may be refused absent due diligence and consistency with the existing record.

---