https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193378 The court upheld the eviction order under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, citing the landlady's reasonable and bona fide need for additional space due to family circumstances. The court dismissed the eviction application under Section 21(1)(p) for lack of evidence. Considering relative hardship, the court found greater hardship on the petitioners if eviction was denied. It was determined that no quit notice was necessary before filing the eviction petition. Partial eviction was deemed impractical, and the tenant's applications for amendment and additional evidence were rejected. The tenant was granted 12 months to vacate the premises. en-us Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:36:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193378 The court upheld the eviction order under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, citing the landlady's reasonable and bona fide need for additional space due to family circumstances. The court dismissed the eviction application under Section 21(1)(p) for lack of evidence. Considering relative hardship, the court found greater hardship on the petitioners if eviction was denied. It was determined that no quit notice was necessary before filing the eviction petition. Partial eviction was deemed impractical, and the tenant's applications for amendment and additional evidence were rejected. The tenant was granted 12 months to vacate the premises. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193378