( 1 ) THIS revision under Sec. 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act is directed against the judgment of the Dist Judge, S. Kanara, confirming in appeal the judgment of the Principal Munsiff, Puttur, in a petition under s. 21 (1) proviso (f) and ordering eviction of the petitioner-terant. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT-1 landlord came to the Rent Controller and the allegations were that he required the premises for his reasonable and bona fide occupation, that the tenant caused damage to the building and hence committed an act contrary to Cl. (o) of S. 108 of the Transfer of Property act and that the tenant also unlawfully sub-let a part of the premises to respt-2. These allegations were controverted by the petitioner-tenant who was Respt-1 in the petition under S. 21 (l ). The landlord gave his statement while the tenant produced himself to controvert that statement. Tne learned Munsiff did not accept the case of the landlord on the question of reasonable and bona fide requirement as well as an any act committed contrary to the provisions of Cl. (o) of Sec. 108 of the T. P. Act. However, the learned Munsiff held that unlawful sub-letting on the part of the tenant was proved and on that ground he allowed the petition of the landlord. ( 3 ) THE tenant came in appeal beore the learned Dist Judge and there too he was unsuccessful. It was held that he unlawfully sub-let a part of the premises. Now the tenant has come up in the present revision. ( 4 ) BOTH the Courts below have decided the case of eviction on the plea of sub-letting with reference to the presumption that arises under sub-sec (3) of S. 21. It is held that Respt-2 is neither a servant nor a member of the family of such servant and since he has been residing in the premises, the presumption arises that he is a sub-tenant. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the landlord submitted that upon the own saying of the tenant, the Respt-2 is residing separately from him perhaps in a cow-shed attached to the main premises, As such, the learned counsel contends that Respt-2 can be stated to be residing in the premises otherwise than in commensality with the tenant. The term "commensahty" has not been defined in the Act. The term "commensahty" has not been defined in the Act. The Chambers Twentieth century Dictionary defines "commensality" as the state of living together for mutual benefit. The Courts below laid emphasis on the statement of the tenant RW. 1 inasmuch as he stated that Respt-2 was formerly residing with him but from 7 to 8 years he is residing separately since he has grown a family. The landlord does not pay wages to Respt-2 for assisting him in the cultivation work but only feeds him. He does not give him a share in the produce. Respt-2 has two children and a wife and the family works outside. The tenant further stated that Respt-2 has no trade of his own. In fact it is the finding of the two Courts below that the allegation that Respt-2 was once carrying on timber trade, is without any basis. The tenant further stated that he got repaired the cow-shed as the family of respt-2 grew and he wanted some more accommodation. This he did 7 or 8 years ago and Respt-2 started living in that cow-shed. According to the tenant, before 7 to 8 years Respt-2 was living with him. He is a close relation of the tenant inasmuch as he is married to his sister. The premises were taken by the tenant on rent some 15 years ago and if respt-2 was living with the tenant in the same premises before 7 to 8 years, the learned Counsel for the petitioner inferred that he should be presumed to be living with the tenant right from the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord PW. 1 was asked to specify the time since when respt-2 was living in the premises and he was unable to give that information. However, he admitted that the lease started some 15 years ago. He could not tell if the tenant is a lame person. According to the tenant he had called his sister's husband for assisstance in cultivation, may be as he was handicapped and that is how both of them lived together in the same premises till 7 to 8 years ago when the family of Respt-2 grew and needed some more accommodation. The tenant RW. 1 of course stated that Respt-2 was residing with him from a long time. The tenant RW. 1 of course stated that Respt-2 was residing with him from a long time. From all this evidence the learned Counsel contended that Respt-2 cannot be stated to be lesiding otherwise than in commensality with the tenant. The emphasis laid by the learned Counsel for the landlord that Respt-2 should live together with the tenant in order to hold him residing in commensality with the tenant, in the circumstances, does not appear to be correct. It is manifest that Respt-2 is residing with the tenant may be right from the commencement of the lease. He is assisting him in cultivation work. He is a close relation. It is stated by the learned Counsel that the tenant was handicapped and in that connection an affidavit is also filed that he is suffering from paralysis. The landlord could not deny the suggestion that the tenant is somewhat lame. Thas is why he brought Respt-2 and both being close relations, obviously lived togetner may be Respt-2 living in a separate cow-shed which is part and parcel of the same premises. To live together does not necessarily signify that all of them must live in one and the same part of the premises. According to the convenience even nearest family members occupy separate portions in a building. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the residence of Respt-2 in the cow-shed means that he is residing otherwise than in commensality with the tenant. It is obviously correct that Respt-1 resides for the mutual benefit of the tenant as well as himself. In this state of affairs, the only finding which could be arrived at was that Respt-2 is not a sub-tenant. ( 6 ) THE two Courts below have therefore erred in arriving at a contrary finding and the order oi eviction has got to be set aside. ( 7 ) THE revision is allowed and the decisions of the two Courts below are set aside. The petition oi the landlord for eviction of the petitionertenant as well as of Respt-2 shall stand dismissed. However, no order is made as to costs. --- *** --- .