G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Rent Controller purporting to be under S. 31c read with Clause (a) to sub-section (1) of S. 31a of the Karnataka Rent control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on 11-8-77. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts are these: the landlady Saira Khatoon (respondent-1) inducted the present writ- petitioner into the suit premises many years before and, when S. 31a to 31d was introduced under Part V-A of the Act in the year 1976, both the landlady, and the tenant applied for regularising the tenancy. At the same time, the landlady averred that the tenant was in possession of a residential house of his own in the name of his wife. Hence, she requested that he shall be directed to vacate the house within one year as contemplated under Clause (a) to sub-sec. (1) of S. 31a of the Act. The Rent controller, by his order, has stated that the tenancy of the tenant cannot be regularised under S. 31c of the Act as he is found to be possessing a residential house in the name of his wife and, in that view, he exempted the landlady from any penal consequences and regularised the tenancy to that extent but directed the tenant, (the present writ petitioner), under Clause (a) to sub-section (1) of s. 31a of the Act, to vacate the premises as agreed by him within three months, by his order dated 11-8-1977, a copy of which is produced at Ex-A. ( 3 ) IT appears that the said order was confirmed by the appellate authority on 7-8-1978 (Vide: Exhibit- b ). Aggrieved by the orders, the present writ petition is filed by the tenant praying that the said orders be quashed and further praying for direction to the Rent Controller to regularise the tenancy. Aggrieved by the orders, the present writ petition is filed by the tenant praying that the said orders be quashed and further praying for direction to the Rent Controller to regularise the tenancy. ( 4 ) SECTION 31c of the Act reads:"regularisation of occupation.- (1) On receipt of the declaration under section 31b, 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 residential building in the same city, town or village in which the building referred to in the declaration is situated. . . . " ( 5 ) IT is under the proviso to S. 31c of the Act that the Rent Controller has observed that the tenancy cannot be regularised. But, it is necessary to recall that the tenant should not possess in his own name or in the name of his family any residential building in the same city. The Rent Controller himself, who inspected the building in the name of the wife of the present writ- petitioner, has observed in the course of the impugned order that the wife of the present writ-petitioner owns two rooms which are used as go-downs and a hall which is used as a school. ( 6 ) THUS, it is obvious that the wife of the present writ-petitioner does not own any residential building. But, strangely enough, the Rent controller has further observed in the course of his order thus:". . Merely because these two buildings are used for non-residential purposes for the present, they cannot be classified as non-residential. " ( 7 ) EVEN taking the meaning of the words 'residential building' in its widest connotation, it should be such building as is capable of being used for the purpose of residence. Two rooms without any further amenity cannot be used for the purpose of residence. Similarly, a big hall, which is built for running a school, cannot be used for the purpose of residence. Hence, it admits of no doubt that the buildings owned by the wife of the present writ-petitioner are not residential buildings. Two rooms without any further amenity cannot be used for the purpose of residence. Similarly, a big hall, which is built for running a school, cannot be used for the purpose of residence. Hence, it admits of no doubt that the buildings owned by the wife of the present writ-petitioner are not residential buildings. They are not, as they are, capable of being used for residence, though we may not make much of the present use of the said buildings. ( 8 ) THAT they may after further construction and additions be converted into residential buildings, is no ground to refuse permission to regularise the tenancy under S. 31c of the act. It is necessary to remember that these are clauses restrictive of the rights of the individuals. They shall be strictly construed. The proviso does not say that if the tenant owns buildings which are capable of being converted into residential building by further construction and additions and making alterations, he shall be refused the facility of regularisation. Building may be either residential or non-residential. Obviously, the buildings owned by the wife of the present writ-petitioner are non-residential in the sense that they are not capable of being used as residence as they are. Hence, I am of the considered view that the Ren,t controller has exercised his jurisdiction illegally in observing that these buildings by further additions and alterations could be converted into residential buildings and that therefore, the tenant is not entiled for regularisation of the tenancy under S. 31c of the Act. ( 9 ) FURTHER, it is on, that ground that he has further ordered that the tenant shall vacate the building taken by him on lease within three months. That follows from his earlier observation. Hence, that part of the order also is liable to be quashed ( 10 ) IN the result, therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Rent Controller on 11-8-1977, confirmed by the Deputy commissioner by his order dated 7-8-1978, (a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'b') is hereby quashed. The Rent Controller is further directed to regularise the tenancy of the present writ-petitioner under Section 31c of the Act for the reasons stated above. No costs. --- *** --- .