G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petitioner Shri p. Srinivasaiah is a landlord of the premises in question. According to him, the premises became vacant on 30-7-80 and, under section 4 (1) of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, he informed the vacancy to the Rent controller on 11-8-1980 as per Annexure-A. Along with the vacancy report, he made a request to the Rent Controller to release the premises in his favour for his personal use and occupation. The Rent Controller issued the vacancy report and Respt-3 got a direction from the Divisional Commissioner for allotment. The Rent Controller considering the claim of the landlord, rejected his request and allotted the premises in favour of respondent-3. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner. Annexures 'd' and 'f' are the copies of the said orders. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner vehemently- contended that the Rent Controller laboured under a wrong impression, of law that it is necessary for the landlord to prove his reasonable and bona fide requirement as if under Clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of sec. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, instead of finding out whether the requirement of the owner's is bona fide as contemplated under section 5 of the said Act. He, therefore, submitted that the very approach of the Rent Controller to the facts of the present case was legally erroneous. He further submitted that the learned deputy Commissioner never considered that aspect. Hence, according to him, the order of the Rent Controller, confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, has to be quashed. ( 3 ) THE order of the Rent Controller is at Annexure-D. The Rent Controller, in para-5 of the order, has stated thus:"when once the landlord requests for self-occupation, the Rent Controller steps into the shoes of the civil Court entertaining an application under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act, and, as laid down in that section, the Rent Controller has to look into the requirements as defined in that Section and, according to which, the mere wish, desire, convenience or fancy of the landlord is not enough for him to get released the notified premises for self- occupation. " ( 4 ) THUS, it is obvious that the rent Controller laboured under the impression that he has to apply the criteria contemplated under Clause (h) of the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka, Rent control Act, 1961, read with the proviso regarding comparative hardship. This view of law is an error apparent on the face of the record. ( 5 ) CLAUSE (h) of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, speaks of obtaining possession from a tenant who is in occupation of the premises for the personal occupation of the landlord bona fide and reasonably. The said section has a proviso which speaks of comparative hardship. ( 6 ) SO far as the bona fides under section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 is concerned, it has to be considered independently of the requirement of an applicant for allotment. There is no question of comparative hardship. It is true that the bona fides of the landlord have to be considered, but not in the light that is contemplated under Clause (h) of the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 of the said Act. Hence, I am constrained to hold that there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. This aspect is not at all considered by the appellate authority. ( 7 ) IN the result, therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Rent Controller, confirmed by the deputy Commissioner, is hereby quashed. The Rent Controller shall proceed to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. He is further directed to dispose of the matter within two months from the date of the receipt of this order. No costs. --- *** --- .