K. J. SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THE building bearing No. 39, St. John's Church Road, Civil Station, bangalore owned by the petitioner has been allotted by the House Rent Controller in favour of A. Vincent - respondents. The validity of the allotment is called into question. ( 2 ) THE main contention of the petitioner is that on the date of allotment, the buiiding was under the occupation of her family friend Veeraraghavalu naidu although unauthorised and therefore, the Controller had no jurisdiction to allot it since it was not vacant. ( 3 ) THE matter arises in, this way: the Controller had instituted, miscellaneous proceedings against Veeraraghavalu naidu on the ground that he was occupying the building in contravention of S. 4 (2) of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (called shortly as "the Act" ). After enquiry, he made an order dated 4th may, 1974 directing that Naidu should vacate and the petitioner should report the vacancy of the building, failing which it should be notified suo-motu- Eut the petitioner and naidu did not comply with the direction. So, the vacancy of the building was notified suo motu and in response to whicn there were as many as four applicants including Respondent-3 in the proceedings for allotment, the petitioner raised an objection, that the controller has no jurisdiction to allot the building in favour of any one of the applicants since it was not vacant. The Controller rejected the objection and allotted the building to Respondent-3. The petitioner along with naidu appealed to the Spl. Deputy commissioner, Bangalore. The appeals were dismissed,. Naidu thereafter appears to have lost interest in the matter and left the landlord alone to prefer this writ petition. However, during the pendency of this petition, naidu has been dispossessed and the possession of the building has been taken over by the Controller as per the direction issued by this Court. ( 4 ) NOW, the short question for consideration is whether the allotment of the building to Respondent-3 when it was already under the unauthorised occupation of Naidu was illegal and without jurisdiction. The answer to the question turns on the scope of Ss. 5 (2), 10a and 10 (2) of the Act. But to understand the scope of these provisions, it will be necessary to refer to the Legislative scheme provided under the Act. The answer to the question turns on the scope of Ss. 5 (2), 10a and 10 (2) of the Act. But to understand the scope of these provisions, it will be necessary to refer to the Legislative scheme provided under the Act. S. 4 provides for intimation of vacancy by a landlord. It is obligatory for every landlord to intimate the vacancy of any building within fifteen days after it becomes vacant. S. 4 (2) imposes a restriction on the landlord to occupy or otherwise use any building which becomes vacant. 3. 5 authorises the Controller to notify the vacancy of any building and allot the same to any person. The explanation to S. 5 provides that the controller could allot the building even if it has been let or occupied in contravention of S. 4 (2 ). After the allotment, the Controller could summarily evict the unauthorised occupant in exercise of the power conferred by s. 10 (2), it necessary, with police assistance as may be required. ( 5 ) THE scope of these sections were considered by this Court in Anthony cruz v. House Rent Controller. Somnath Iyer, J. speaking for the bench observed that the Controller ge,ts no power to evict an unauthorised occupant before the building is allotted by him in accordance with law. He said: "the eviction of a tenant to whom there is a lease in contravention of either sub-sec. (1) or sub-sec. (2) of S. 4, is possible under S. 10 (2 ). But the power to direct such eviction becomes available only when there is an allotment to someone under section 5. " it is clear from this decision that the controller cannot forcibly evict an unauthorised occupant before he allots the same to any applicant. After this decision, the Legislature amended S. 10 by inserting S. 10a (1) to (3), conferring power on the Controller to evict the illegal or unauthorised occupant of any building. S. 10a (3) (a) provides that Ss. 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 shall apply to such building as if intimation of vacancy has been given to the Controller on the date on which he takes possession of the building. For the petitioner it was urged that the controller who initiated proceedings for eviction under S. 10a must take possession of the building first and then notjfy the vacancy thereof. For the petitioner it was urged that the controller who initiated proceedings for eviction under S. 10a must take possession of the building first and then notjfy the vacancy thereof. The emphasis was laid on S. 10a (3) (a) which provides:"upon service of an order under sub-section (2), the person against whom an order is made and every person claiming under him shall vacate the building and deliver possession thereof to the Controller. If the building is not vacated and its possession delivered to the Controller within the period specified in the order, trie Controller may summarily dispossess the persons in occupation and take possession of the building and thereupon the provisions of sections 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 shall apply to the building as if intimation of vacancy of the building was given to the Controller on the date on which he took possession of it. "no doubt, the above sub-section provides that the provisions of Ss. 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 shall apply to the building as if intimation of its vacancy was given to the Controller on the date on which he takes possession of it. But does it make it obligatory for the controller to take possession of the building before notifiying the vacancy? if the question is answered in the affirmative, then what happens to the power of the Controller under S. 10 (2) ? was it the intention of the Legislature by inserting S. 10a to take away that power? Reed Dickerson states (2)"whether the statute is clear or obsfuie, whether or not it adequately resolves the current issue, and whether it can be applied as it came from the legislative oven or muft be remoulded, the Court should first examine it in its proper context to discover, if possible, what it most probably means, Then, after measuring the legislative contribution, the court, where necessary may add its own contribution. "it seems to me that the power con ferred undei S. 10 (2) has not been rendered superfluous by insertion of s. 10a (1) to (3 ). If it was the intention of the Legislature, then there would have been deletion of S. 10 (2 ). Since S. 10 (2) continues to be in the statute, the Court cannot ignore it, and the Controller cannot be denied, of it. If it was the intention of the Legislature, then there would have been deletion of S. 10 (2 ). Since S. 10 (2) continues to be in the statute, the Court cannot ignore it, and the Controller cannot be denied, of it. The Controller could allot any building even when it is under the unauthorised occupation by someone and forcibly evict such person if the landlord does not give vacant possession. That is precisely what the explanation to the proviso to S. 5 and s. 10 (2) provides for. S. 5 expressly authorises the Controller to lease a building notwithstanding that it is subject to an agreement of lease or has been let or occupied in contravention of sub-sec. (2) of S. 4. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the power conferred by the Explanation to S. 5 could now be invoked only against a person who has occupied the building in contravention of S. 4 (2) subsequent to the intimation of its vacancy is too hard to be accepted, There is no reason to restrict the operation of the said explanation or limit it only to such persons. Reed Dickerson quotes Justice frankfurther (3) who said:"the judicial construction, ought to stick close to what legislature says and not draw prodigally upon unformulated purposes or directions. " ( 6 ) TO sum up, it may be stated that before the incorporation of S. 10a by amending Act 14 of 1969, the procedure for summary eviction of a person who enters the building in contravention of S. 4 (2) had not been provided. Now s. 10a provides for such procedure. It also authorises the Controller t evict such person and take possession of the building. Before the amendment, the possession of a building could '. e taken from an unauthorised occupant only after its allotment, but after the said amendment, the illegal occupant could be evicted even before the allotment. But then, the Act does not require that the Controller should be in possession of the vacant building before it is notified or allotted to any applicant. After the allotment of such building, he could call upon the landlord to give vacant possession and upon his failure, the Controller shall take possession by using such force as may be required. In the circumstances, the allotment of the building to respondent -3 cannot, therefore, be regarded as illegal. After the allotment of such building, he could call upon the landlord to give vacant possession and upon his failure, the Controller shall take possession by using such force as may be required. In the circumstances, the allotment of the building to respondent -3 cannot, therefore, be regarded as illegal. ( 7 ) IN the result, the rule is discharged and the writ petition it dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. ( 8 ) THE Controller has already taken posession of the building pursuant to the interim order made by this Court. He shall now deliver possession of the building to Respondent-3. --- *** --- .