( 1 ) THIS is a tenant's revision petition against the order passed by the Additional district Judge, Gulbarga in HRC. Appeal No. 46 of 1971, affirming the order passed by the Principal Munsiff, Gulbarga in HRC. No. 37 of 1969. The respondent-land-lord filed an application against the petitioner for eviction, on the ground that the petitioner sub-let the premises leased to him for more than a month to one Sri B. S. Vasudevarao. The petitioner resisted the application, inter alia contending that the said Vasudevarao was staying with him not as a tenant but as his guest. The learned munsiff, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had sub-let the premises to Vasudevarao. Consequently, the Court made an order of eviction against the petitioner. That order has been affirmed on appeal by the learned District Judge. Hence, this revision petition. ( 2 ) SHRI Manohar Rao Jagirdar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Court below committed an error in taking the view that vasudevarao was a tenant under the petitioner. It is clear from the order of the learned District Judge that he has taken the view that the petitioner had sub-let the premises to Vasudevarao, inasmuch as all the conditions specified in clause (a) to sub-sec. (3) of S. 21, Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 have been satisfied in this case. The said clause reads as follows;"21 (3 ). For the purpose of clause (f) of proviso to sub-sec. (1) the Court may presume that the premises have been sub-let by a tenant- (a) in any case where such premises have been let for use as, residence if the Court is satisfied that any other person not being a servant or member of the family of such servant has been residing in the premises or any part thereof for a period exceeding one month otherwise than in commensality with the tenant or ; "clause (f) of the proviso to sub-sec. (1) refers to sub-letting. ( 3 ) IT is clear from the aforesaid clause that if the conditions therein are satisfied, the Court may presume that the premises have been sub-let by a tenant. (1) refers to sub-letting. ( 3 ) IT is clear from the aforesaid clause that if the conditions therein are satisfied, the Court may presume that the premises have been sub-let by a tenant. As the expression used is 'may', it is not obligatory on the part of the Court to draw a presumption that the premises have been sublet by a tenant, if the conditions mentioned in sub-clause (a) of sub-section (3) of S. 21 are satisfied. The question whether such a presumption should be drawn or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Besides, it is necessary to note that the presumption arising from clause (a) of sub-sec. (3) of S. 21 is a rebuttable one. Even when all the conditions mentioned in clause (a) to sub-sec. (3) of S. 21 are satisfied, the tenant may, by producing satisfactory evidence, establish that he has not in fact sub-let the premises. That can be done by the tenant placing satisfactory evidence to establish that the person residing in the premises is either a guest or one of the members of his family. The Court below has failed to notice that the presumption arising out of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of S. 21 is a rebuttable presumption. ( 4 ) THE landlord has, in support of his case, examined the said Vasudevarao to whom, it is alleged, the premises was sub-let by the petitioner. He was examined as PW. 3. In his evidence, he has categorically stated that the premises was not leased to him and that he has not paid any rent in respect thereof. He has categorically stated that he was residing with the petitioner as his guest. As Vasudevarao has been examined as a witness on behalf of the landlord himself, there are no good reasons as to why his evidence, which fully supports the case of the petitioner-tenant, should not be accepted in this behalf. If the statement made by Vasudevarao is accepted, it will clearly establish that though he was residing in the suit premises, he was doing so as the guest of the petitioner and not as a subtenant. If the statement made by Vasudevarao is accepted, it will clearly establish that though he was residing in the suit premises, he was doing so as the guest of the petitioner and not as a subtenant. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the fact that one room was given exclusively to Vasudearao and that he was not taking meals with the petitioner goes to show that Vasudevarao was not residing in the premises as a guest, but was in fact residing as a tenant under the petitioner. I find it difficult to agree with this submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent. Vasudevarao has stated in his evidence that as he is a Government servant and a the quarters were not immediately available to him. the petitioner accommodated him for some time as his guest. It is not uncommon that guests are given an exclusive room for themselves to ensure privacy and adequate comfort. It is because Vasudevarao was in difficulty for want of quarters that the petitioner, a friend of his, obliged him by allowing him to stay in one of the rooms in the premises as his guest In this backgrund, the fact that Vasudevarao was not taking meals with the petitioner does not assume much importance. I am satisfied that the material placed by the landlord himself rebuts the presumption arising from clause (a) of sub-sec. (3) of S. 21 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961. The evidence on record clearly establishes that Shri Vasudevarao was residing with the petitioner as his guest and not as a sub-tenant ( 5 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed and the orders passed by the Courts below are set aside and the application of the respondent is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs. --- *** --- .