A building cannot be considered a residential building under the Rent Control Act unless it is let for a residential purpose or can be let for residential purpose in its present condition.

( 1 ) BY consent of learned counsel, this appeal was treated as having been posted for hearing and we heard them.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is from the order of sabhahit, J. allowing WP No. 9344 of 1978. Respondient-1 therein has presented this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to according to their respective positions in the writ petition.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT-1 had let out and the petitioner had taken on lease, a residential building bearing No. 57/41 (2), harshamahal Road, Hassan, town, in contravention of Ss. 4 and 5 of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Both of them filed declarations before the prescribed authority, House Rent controller, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Controller' ). While the petitioner had sought for regularisation of his occupation of the residential building under sub-sec. (1) of S 31-C, respondent-1 objected to such regularisation on the ground that the petitioner owned to the name of his wife a residential building which had been let out. The petitioner's reply to such objection was that the building could not be regarded as a 'residential building. However, the Controller upheld the objection of respondent-1 taking the view that that building though had been put to a non-residential use, should be treated as a residential building since it could be used for residential purpose by making some additions and alterations to that building.

( 4 ) AGAINST that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner who dismissed it 'upholding the view of the Controller.

( 5 ) THE petitioner impugned the orders of the Controller and the Deputy Commissioner in the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen, The learned single Judge, who heard the writ portion, allowed it, quashed ther orders impugned therein and directed the Controller to regularise the petitioner's occupation of respondent-1's residential building. The learned Single judge disagreed with the view of the controller and the Deputy Commissioner that the said. building could be considered as a residential building merely because with some additions and alterations it was possible to use that building for residential purpose after additions and alterations.

( 6 ) IN this appeal, Sri S. Nanjundaswamy, learned Counsel for the appellant (respondent-1 in the writ petition), questioned the correctness of the view of the learned single Judge. He maintained that the view of the Controller and the Deputy Commissioner in that regard was the correct one. On the other hand, Sri G. S. Visweswara,, learned Counsel for the petitioner, sought to support the order of the learned single Judge.

( 7 ) SUB-SEC. (1) of S. 31-C reads. (1) On receipt of the declaration under Section 31-B, the prescribed authority shall, if so satisfied pass an order declaring that the occupation or letting out from its inception is lawful:"provided that no such order shall be passed in favour of a declarant who owns either in his own name or in the name of his family any rcsidential building in the same city, town or village, in which the building referred to in the declaration is situated. "

( 8 ) SECTION 31-C is in Part-VA of the act. As stated in S. 31-A, the provisions of that Part apply in respect of residential buildings to which Part-II of the Act applies. The expression 'residential building' has not been denned in the Act, but it is plain that that expression should have the same meaning in Part-II and Part-VA of the Act. The provisions of Part-II of the Act treat residential and non-residential buildings differently. Clause (a) of S. 3 defines 'building' as any building or hut or part of a building or hut other than a farm house let or to be let separately for residential or non-rersidential purpose. This definition of 'building' indicates that the purpose for which a building is let or is to be let, is the determining factor in deciding whether a pa