Murlidher Rao, J.:—

These petitions are filed by the tenants. The respondent is the landlord. He is a retired official of the State Government. He filed eviction petitions under Section 21-C of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). The said provision was added as an amendment on 20th March 1984. The petitioners filed eviction petitions on 15th April, 1984 enclosing a certificate dated 3rd April 1984 which reads thus:—

“This is to certify that Sri K.R Chokkalinga Raju was working as Deputy Marshal in the Office of the Secretary, Karnataka Legislature Secretariat and retired from service with effect from 31-3-1982 afternoon on attaining the age of superannuation. This certificate is issued to him at his request in terms of sub-section (i) of Section 21(c) of the Karnataka Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1984 issued in Notification No. LAW 89 LGN 83 dated 20-3-1984.

KRISHNA RAO PAWAR

Under Secretary

Karnataka Legislature.”

Thereafter under Section 21-C(a)(i) and (ii) of the Karnataka Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1984, the Under Secretary, Karnataka Legislature issued another certificate dated 9-7-1985 which reads as follows:

“This is to certify that Sri K.R Chokkalinga Raju was working as Deputy Marshal in the Office of the Secretary, Karnataka Legislature Secretariat and retired from service with effect from 31-3-1982 afternoon on attaining the age of superannuation and further he does not possess any other suitable premises in the local area where he or the members of his family can reside.

This Certificate is issued to him in continuation of Certificate already issued in No. 20.LA/LC dated 3-4-1984 at his request in terms of sub-sections (i) and (ii) of Section 21C(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1984 issued in Notification No. LAW 89 LGN 83 dated 20-3-1984.

(KRISHNA RAO PAWAR)

Under Secretary,

Karnataka Legislature.”

The landlord in his eviction petitions had stated that he needs the premises bona fide and reasonably as accommodation available to him is not sufficient. It is not disputed that the landlord is staying in a portion of this premises. The occupation of Landlord and three tenants is as per sketch Ex. P-7. According to the Commissioner's report which is extracted by the learned Judge in his Judgment at para 11, the accommodation available to the landlord consists of the following—

One verandah measuring 12′ × 6′

Room - 9′ × 9′

another adjacent room 9′ × 8′

one hall measuring 9′ × 9′,

kitchen 7′ × 8′,

dining hall 8′ × 8′.

and there is a passage adjacent to the kitchen measuring 3′ × 7′.

2. It is an admitted fact that there was another tenant by name Madhusudhana Rao and the said Madhusudhana Rao voluntarily vacated the premises. According to Ex. P-1, the accommodation available to Madhusudhana Rao consisted of one hall, one room, verandah, kitchen and bath room. It is pertinent to mention that in between the houses of the landlord and of Madhusudhana Rao, there is an open space. The petitioners-tenants are staying behind the house of Madhusudhana Rao. Learned Counsel appearing for the landlord admitted that after Madhusudhana Rao vacated the premises, he did not report the vacancy to the Rent Controller as required under Section 4 of the Act and occupied the same without obtaining necessary permission from the Rent and Accommodation Controller. In this context, his action is unlawful.

3. In the Court below, the tenants contended that petition under Section 21-C was not maintainable. It was also maintained that there are no bonafides in the application and therefore the petitions were liable to be rejected. On the pleas so taken, the Court below raised the following points for determination:

1. Whether petitioner proves that he is entitled for an eviction Order under Section 21(C) of the K.R.C Act?

2. Whether petitioner further proves that the respondents have created any nuisance and they are liable for eviction under Section 21(1)(d) of K.R.C Act?

3. Whether greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it?

4. What order?

4. The landlord examined himself as P.W 1. In his evidence he admits that the premises vacated by Madhusudhana Rao was occupied by him. The Court below after considering the strength of the family in the landlord's house has passed an order of eviction. It was also held that the certificates mentioned above are conclusive proof of the fact that the landlord is a retired Government official and he does not have suitable premises to reside in the locality. It appears that the certificate is issued casually and as a matter of course. The fact whether the retired official “possesses suitable premises” is a declaration of fact, which should reflect the reality. The Controlling Officer must Indicate the reasons for his satisfaction about the truth of such a declaration. It cannot be issued merely because the retired official says so.

5. In these petitions the tenants submit that provisions of Section 21-C of the Act cannot be invoked by a retired official who is in occupation of the portion of the premises. In other words, the learned Counsel contended that the facts contained in the certificate stand repudiated as the landlord is staying in one portion of the house and he needed additional accommodation, which is not contemplated by Section 21-C. This Section was inserted by Amendment Act 6 of 1984 w.e.f 20-3-1984. Landlord retired on 31-3-1982 and had not taken any proceedings for eviction till the provision was Introduced. It was suggested that the Intention of introducing Section 21-C was to benefit the retired official, who is staying in a rented premises or allotted quarters. With the retirement his emoluments get reduced and since he ceases to be a Government Servant he would not be entitled to continue in the designated quarters. Even in cases where he is staying in the allotted premises, he would not be entitled to stay in the allotted premises beyond one year once he acquires his own premises, as provided in Section 21-A. It is a beneficial piece of legislation, to help the retired Government Servant, in relieving him of his liability to pay rent and stay in his own house. It cannot be abused for seeking additional accommodation, long after retirement. Being an exception to general provision of eviction under Section 21, it has to be strictly adhered to. He also submitted that even if it is assumed that what is mentioned in the certificates is conclusive proof of those facts mentioned in Section 21-C of the Act, nevertheless, there are no bona fides on the part of the landlord in filing the eviction petition. Elaborating his argument, learned Counsel submitted that as the landlord has secured the accommodation which was available with Madhusudhana Rao, it was no longer open to him to seek additional accommodation, particularly because the sons for whom additional accommodation is claimed have not been examined, to establish their needs.

6. It appears to me that these contentions have to be accepted. The fact that the landlord has secured possession of the portion vacated by Madhusudhana Rao is not disputed. It is also not disputed that including the accommodation that was available with Madhusudhana Rao, the landlord will be having three rooms, two halls, two kitchens and two bath rooms etc. In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of the landlord that he bona fide requires the premises. From the sketch (Ex. P-7), it is clear that there is open space in between the house of landlord and that of Madhusudhana Rao. The premises occupied by petitioners/tenants are contiguous to each other and attached to Madhusudhana Rao's premises.

7. The object and reason for introducing Section 21-C is found in the Statement of Objects and Reasons, in the Amendment Bill, it reads thus:

“The Karnataka State Government Employees Association. The Karnataka State Secondary Teachers Association and the Karnataka State Pensioners Association have represented that the retired Government Servants and their family members are facing difficulties in getting possession of their houses back from their tenants after their retirement or on death under the existing provisions of the Rent Control Act. Therefore, they have requested to amend the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 providing for summary termination of the tenancy of houses owned by Government servants or by members of their families when they are required for self-occupation on retirement from service or death. It is necessary that the Government servants who have put in long years of service should be enabled to lead peaceful life in their own houses after retirement by making the case of ex-servicemen and their families. Hence the process of securing possession easier and quicker as in Bill.”

8. It is manifest that summary eviction is intended for “Self Occupation after retirement or death.” It is implicit that the retired official, invoking this provision, must have been in occupation of premises other than his own.

To take benefit of Section 21-C two conditions are mandatory:—

Firstly, he should be a retired Government Servant and secondly “he does not possess any other suitable premises in the local area where he or the members of his family can reside.”

(Emphasis added)

The employment of word “Possess” is not without significance. The dictionary meaning of the word “Possess” is—

‘to occupy in person; to have as occupant; to inhabit”

(vide Webster's Dictionary)

‘to inhabit or hold as owner, to have, to seize, to control; to be master of”

(vide Chamber's 20th Century Dictionary).

9. It is axiomatic that the words “does not possess” hould mean “does not inhabit” “does not have” “does not occupy” “does not hold as owner.”

10. That the landlord, in the instant case, is residing in a portion of the house, is not disputed. Apart from the original building where he resides, he has secured the accommodation in occupation of the ex-tenant Madhusudhana Rao. The question is whether he can be said to be person “who is not possessed of suitable premises to reside.” The house is built by him and he is residing in a portion; it cannot be said that it is not suitable. That he is experiencing some inconvenience or is lacking in conforts does not mean he is not “possessed of a suitable premises.” Under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act, landlord can seek eviction by establishing his need or requirement being bona fide and reasonable for additional accommodation. The requirement of a landlord who is staying in a rented premises, or allotted premises, or allotted quarters or designated quarters stands on a different footing and is undoubtedly bona fide. In all these cases, his occupation is permissive possession. He is liable to be evicted, under certain circumstances. He does not hold the premises as owner, nor has he domain or control over it. It may suit him or not; but he has to stay, as he is required to stay, not because of his choice, but because of service conditions. In such cases, the element of “reasonableness” is presumed, because it is reasonable for a person to stay in his own house and secondly he will be relieved of the burden of paying rents. In case of allotted houses, he has to pay rent, as fixed by Rent and Accommodation Controller, in other cases ten per cent of his salary is deducted towards rent and that is the reason why the Statute does not employ the words “reasonable” in Section 21-C. But in the case of additional accommodation, it has to be not only bona fide but reasonable, because circumstances must be shown to exist where the present accommodation available with the landlord in his own house is insufficient and inadequate.

11. The certificate issued by the Controlling Authority has no relevance and fact stated therein cannot be treated as “conclusive” so as to dispense with the proof as is usually required in cases coming under Clause (h) of Section 21(1). The relief would not be granted without proving the question of comparative hardship and partial eviction when the case comes under Clause (h) of Section 21(1). If the case squarely falls under Section 21-C, these facts are not necessary to be established, but in cases of seeking additional accommodation, can it be said that these elements are not relevant? In my Judgment the answer must be in the negative and a claim for additional accommodation has to be bona fide and reasonable and it has to be established that by not granting additional accommodation the landlord will be put to greater hardship. Such a relief can be sought only under clause (h) of Section 21(1) of the Act and not under Section 21-C. Therefore it appears to me that the tenants are justified in contending that the petition for eviction was not maintainable.

12. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the landlord that the contents of the Certificate are conclusive proof of what is mentioned therein in the petition and therefore his requirement of the premises is not only bona fide but reasonable. It is not possible to accept this contention for the simple reason that Section 21-C has no application to a case of seeking additional accommodation. Eviction petition was misconceived.

13. At this stage, learned Counsel for the landlord submits that C. Somashekhar, petitioner in C.R.P 4672 of 1987 has not paid or deposited the rents as required by Section 29 of the K.R.C Act. This is a belated argument, I have come to the conclusion that the eviction petition was misconceived and Section 21-C has no application to the facts of this case. At this stage, on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible to investigate this factual aspect. The contention is rejected.

For the aforesaid reasons, these petitions succeed; the C.R.Ps are allowed, impugned orders are set aside. Eviction petitions are dismissed. No costs.