She is also owner of the premises wherein the appellants are the tenants.
During the pendency of the civil revision, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 for short the 1999 Act came into force.
The two companyrts also examined the case from the point of view of companyparative hardship as required by Sub section 4 of Section 21 of the 1961 Act and arrived at a finding that if the tenant appellants were directed to be evicted they would suffer greater hardship than the hardship which would be suffered by the landlady in the event of the eviction being denied.
The Rent Controller and the Appellate Court found the requirement of the landlady number made out.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the tenant appellants have preferred this appeal by special leave.
The occupation of the landladys family is weaving.
The landlady preferred a revision petition in the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The second of the major sons was to be married and the premises in occupation of the landlady did number have enough accommodation to allow occupation by the second major son as a married member of the family, inasmuch as his wife shall also have to be accommodated in the premises in occupation of the family.
One of the major sons was married, also blessed with a child and engaged in the family business.
The second major son was unemployed and yet to be married.
He was desirous of starting his own business but the premises presently in occupation of the landlady were number sufficient to accommodate any business activity of the second son.
The other two sons were minor and did number have any place to study available within the premises in their occupation.
The tenants in their written statement filed before the Rent Controller admitted the premises to be residential and in their occupation for residence.
The requirement as pleaded by the landlady is that she has two major sons and two minor sons.
The eviction petition was filed some time in the year 1985.
C. Lahoti, J. This is a landlord tenant dispute wherein the landlady has sought for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises for her own occupation by herself and by members of her family residing with her, under Clause h of proviso to Sub section 1 of Section 21 of The Karntaka Rent Control Act, 1961 hereinafter the 1961 Act, for short .
Admittedly, the respondent landlady is a widow.
