( 1 ) PETITIONER in this revision petition is the landlord. He filed an application for eviction of the respondent, purporting to be under S. 21 (1) (g) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961. The application was allowed by the learned Munsiff, Davangere. But, in appeal filed before the Court of the district Judge, Chitradurga, it was rejected. That is why the landlord has come up in revision before this Court under S. 50 of the Mysore Rent control Act, 1961. ( 2 ) IN the application filed by the landlord, it was alleged as under:"the respondent was a clerk under the petitioner for over a period of 30 years. On that account he was permitted by the petitioner to occupy the schedule premises on a nominal rent of Rs. 5 per month. The respondent has left the services of the petitioner on 19-10-68 and joined the firm of Mothi Doddappa and Sons, Davanagere. The petitioner in the place of the respondent has employed another clerk under him and desires the schedule premises for his bona fide use and occupation to house the new clerk. "the case of the landlord was that the schedule premises was let out to the respondent as a tenant for his use by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord and that the tenant has ceased to be in such service or employment. ( 3 ) IN the objection statement filed by the tenant, the contention raised was that the premises was not let out to him on the ground that he was in the service of the petitioner-landlord, his case was that me premises was let out to him on a monthly rent of Ks. 5 about 15 years back and it was not let out solely on the ground that he was under the employment of the landlord. The learned trial Judge recorded the evidence. The evidence placed before the Court, by the landlord was that the respondent was a clerk under him and that the premises was given to him and he was asked to pay a nominal rent of Rs. 5 per month to cover the kandayam. The learned trial Judge recorded the evidence. The evidence placed before the Court, by the landlord was that the respondent was a clerk under him and that the premises was given to him and he was asked to pay a nominal rent of Rs. 5 per month to cover the kandayam. It was further stated that the respondent was not working under him and is now working under one Mothi Doddapppa and Sons, and in place of the respondent, one Sannappa was employed as his clerk for whom there is no house and as such, the premises occupied by the respondent is required for his newly employed clerk. The landlord further refuted the suggestion made by the tenant that the premises was leased to the respondent as a tenant and that it was not given to him since he was his clerk. The landlord further stated that he has got other houses adjacent to the schedule premises and the rent of those premises is rs. 10 per month. It was also mentioned by the landlord that he was taking rent out of the salary whenever it was drawn by the respondent. Admittedly it is found that the respondent was working under the landlord for nearly 30 years and the premises was given to him only 15 or 16 years back. ( 4 ) THE tenant was examined as DW. 1. In his evidence before the court, he has admitted that he was living in the premises since 15 years and the rent of the premises was Rs. 5 per month. He also admitted that he has left the employment under the petitioner-landlord. It is necessary to note that neither in the objection statement nor in the evidence the tenant has alleged that there was any subsequent agreement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent regarding letting out of the suit premises to him as an independent tenant and that too after he left the employment. The learned appellate Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim of the landlord on the sole ground that the premises was not let out to the respondent-tenant at the time when he entered employment. The view taken by the learned appellate Judge is that the provisions of S. 21 (1) (g) of the act apply only to such cases where the premises are let out simultaneously with the employment. The view taken by the learned appellate Judge is that the provisions of S. 21 (1) (g) of the act apply only to such cases where the premises are let out simultaneously with the employment. The short question that arises for consideration is, whether the view taken by the learned appellate Judge is one in accordance with the provisions of S. 21 (1) (g) of the Act. ( 5 ) UNDER S. 21 (1) (g) of the Act, the conditions that are required to be fulfilled by the landlord beiore he gets an order for eviction under the Act are : (1) that the premises were let out to the tenant for use as a residence; (2) that the premises has to be let out to the tenant by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord; and (3) that the tenant has ceased to be in service or employment of the landlord. It is only on the fulfilment of these three conditions that the landlord is entitled to an order of eviction. In the present case, it has been found that (1) the premises were let out to the tenant for use as a residence; (2) it has also been found that the premises were let out to him for being in the service or employment of the landlord; and (3) that the tenant has ceased to be under such service or employment of the landlord. ( 6 ) IN my opinion, under S. 21 (1) (g), it is not required that the premises must be let out to the tenant by reason of his being in service at the time when he entered employment under the landlord. It is open to the landlord to give the premises to the tenant by reason of his being in the employment even at a later date and the protection that is available to the tenant to continue in the premises will be withdrawn when he ceases to be in employment of the landlord, having regard to the provisions of S. 21 (1) (g ). The moment the tenant ceases to be in such service or employment the provisions of S. 21 (1) (g) of the Act enable the landlord to seek eviction under that section. The moment the tenant ceases to be in such service or employment the provisions of S. 21 (1) (g) of the Act enable the landlord to seek eviction under that section. ( 7 ) THE Rent Control Act enables a landlord to seek eviction of his tenant, if the premises are let out to a tenant for use as a residence in consequence of his being in service and such tenant has ceased to be in service. The provisions of the English Act are similar to the Mysore Act. In Stone (J and F) Lighting and Radio Ltd. v. Levitt, (1946) 2 All. E. R. 653, while considering a question of a tenancy of a flat granted to the defendant at a weekly rent in view of the fact that defendant was the Manager, it was held that the tenancy in question was in consequence of his employment under the Act. So the only point required to be proved is that the letting should be on account of the existence of the relationship of the employer and the employee, irrespective of as to when actually the employee gets into the premises. ( 8 ) THE learned Advocate for the respondent, however, placed reliance upon the judgment of the King's Bench Division reported in Read v. Gordon, LR. (1941) 1 KB. 495. It is necessary to note that in that case, it was specifically pleaded that after the tenant ceased to be in the employment, there was a fresh agreement and the contention raised before the Court was that having regard to the fresh agreement entered into between the parties, the benefit of the Act was not available to the landlord. But, in the present case, the tenant did not enter into any fresh agreement between him and the landlord subsequently. In my view, the judgment of Read v. Gordon would not be of any assistance to the respondent in this revision petition. Similarly, the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in governor-General in Council v. Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1948 Cal. 8, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent, has no bearing on the question for determination in the present case. Similarly, the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in governor-General in Council v. Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1948 Cal. 8, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent, has no bearing on the question for determination in the present case. ( 9 ) UNDER the provisions of the Mysore Rent Control Act, it is open to the landlord to give the premises belonging to him and lease it out to his employee as a tenant and if it is given to the tenant by reason of his being in service, the protection available under the Act is withdrawn when the tenant leaves the service or employment under the landlord and that enables the landlord to seek eviction. Therefore, the two judgments cited above would not be of any assistance in deciding the question in this case. The sole ground upon which the application was rejected is, as already held, untenable. In that view, the order passed by the learned appellate judge will have to be set aside. ( 10 ) IN the result, this revision petition is allowed; the order passed by the learned District Judge, Chitradurga, is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. ( 12 ) THE respondent-tenant is granted six months' time to vacate the premises. --- *** --- .