CHANDRASHEKHAR, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the order of sabhahit, J. , dismissing W. P. No. 19185 of 1980. The petitioner therein has presented this appeal and for the sake of convenience, he will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner. ( 2 ) IN the writ petition, the peti- tioner had impugned an order of the assistant Commissioner and Houst rent Controller, Davangere (hereinafter referred to as the Controller) dated 30-4-1980 in H. R. C. No. 41 of 1979-80 and the appellate order of the special Deputy Commissioner, Chitra- durga, dated 8-9-1980 affirming the order of the Controller. ( 3 ) THE facts which led up to the writ petition are briefly these: Res- pondenl;-3, Shakuntala Bai, is the owner of a building which fell vacant on account of the tenant thereof ceasing to occupy it. She appears to have let it to the petitioner without intimating the vacancy to the controller as required by S. 4 of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). However, she reported the vacancy on 6-10-79 by which time the petitioner had already occupied the building. Thereafter, the Controller initiated proceedings under Part II of the Act for allotment of the building. The petitioner and one other person were the only two applicants for allotment of that building. In the Order-sheet of such allotment proceedings, the order made on 17-11-1979 reads: on perusal of the records, it is seen that the vacancy, report filed by the applicant discloses the fact that applicant-2 is already in possession of the premises. Initiate S. 10a proceedings against the applicant as he is admittedly in occupation of the premises. Issue show cause notice under Sec. 10a (1) of the k. R. C. Act, 1961. " ( 4 ) AFTER considering the cause shown by the petitioner, the Controller, by his order ma,de on 30-4-1980, directed the petitioner to vacate the building within 15 days from the date of that order and to hand over the possession thereof to the Controller. The appeal preferred by the petitioner agajnst that order was dismissed by the special Deputy Commissioner, Chitra- durga District. As stated earlier, the orders of the Controller and the special Deputy Commissioner were impugned in the writ petition and the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The appeal preferred by the petitioner agajnst that order was dismissed by the special Deputy Commissioner, Chitra- durga District. As stated earlier, the orders of the Controller and the special Deputy Commissioner were impugned in the writ petition and the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. ( 5 ) IN this appeal, Shri S. K. V. Chalapathy, learned Counsel for the appellant, urged the following two contentions: (i) The petitioner's case did not fall within the ambit of S. 10a of the Ac inasmuch as the vacancy of the building had been reported before action under that section was commenced. (ii) The Controller should have postponed taking action under S. 10a till he decided the applications of the petitioner and another for allotment of the building. ( 6 ) WE shall deal with the first contention. ( 7 ) THE material parts of S. 4 of the act, read:"4. Intimation of vacancy by landlords.- (1) Every landlord shall, within fifteen days after the building becomes vacant by his ceasing to occupy it or by the termination of. a tenancy or by the eviction of the tenant or by the release of the building from requisition, or otherwise, give intimation in the prescribed form by registered post to the Controller. (2) Except as provided in this Part, no person shall let, occupy or otherwise use any building which becomes vacant without the landlord giving intimation under sub-section (1) and for a period of fifteen days from the date on which the intimation is received bv the Controller or within a period ol one week after the termination of the proceedings under Section 8, if any, whichever is later:-"sub-section (1) S. 10a reads;"10a. Eviction by the Controller: (1) Where in accordance with the provisions of Section 4, the vacancy of any building is required to be intimated to the' Controller ,and is not so intimated, and the Controller believes or has reason to believe that any person has in contravention of sub-section (2) of Section 4 occupied the building or any part thereof, he may by notice in writing, call upon the person in occupation to show cause, within a, time to be fixed by the Controller, why such person should not be evicted therefrom. " (underlining (italics) is ours) ( 8 ) A plain reading of sub-section (1) of S. 10a, makes it clear that tha,t subsection empowers the Controller to evict a person from a building, if two conditions are satisfied, namely,- (i) the vacancy of the building is required to be intimated to the Controller under S. 4, but has not been so intimated, and (ii) the Controller believes or has reason to believe tha,t any person has occupied that building or any part thereof in contravention of sub-sec. (2) of S. 4. ( 9 ) SHRI Chalapathy did not dispute that the second of the aforesaid conditions was satisfied in the present case. But, he contended that the first of the aforesaid conditions was not satisfied because the landlord had intimated the Controller on 6-10-1979 the vacancy of the building. Sri Chalapathy laid stress on the portion of sub-section (2) of Sec. 10a which has been underlined by us above and contended that this was not a case where the vacancy was not intimated to the Controller and that hence no proceedings could be initiated under S. 10a. ( 10 ) THE intimation of the vacancy contemplated by S. 10a, is intimation in accordance with S. 4, i. e. , within 15 days after the building becomes vacant. It is also implicit that such intimation should be before occupying the building. Otherwise, any proceeding under S. 10a can be frust- rated by sending the intimation of the vacancy after unauthorisedly occupying the building which hap fallen" vacant, but just before such proceeding is commmenced. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, Shri Chalapathy contended that even if the vacancy of the building is intimated to the Controller after occupying it, S. 10a would not be attracted and ,the Controller would have no power to evict under that section. He maintained that in such a situation, the Controller can exercise power only under sub-section (2) of S. 10. That sub-section empowers the Controller to evict any person in occupation or control of a building after the Controller makes an order under S. 5 for leasing that building to a public authority or a person. He maintained that in such a situation, the Controller can exercise power only under sub-section (2) of S. 10. That sub-section empowers the Controller to evict any person in occupation or control of a building after the Controller makes an order under S. 5 for leasing that building to a public authority or a person. ( 12 ) FOR the purpose of this appeal, it is not necessary to decide the question whether the Controller can make an order of allotment of a building under S. 5 before evicting the person in unauthorised occupation of that building. We shall assume that the Controller can make such an order of allotment of a building before evicting the person in unauthorised occupation thereof. No doubt, under sub-section (2) of S. 10 the Controller has power to evict the landlord or any other person who is in occupation of a building after the Controller makes an order under S. 5 allotting that building to a public authority or another person. But, it does not follow that a person who has unauthorisedly occupied any building in contravention of sub-sec. (2) of S. 4, cannot be evicted under sub-section (1) of S. 10a and that such person can be evicted only after the Controller makes an order of allotment under s. 5. In our opinion, sub-section (1) of S. 10a confers power on the Controller to evict such unauthorised occupant even prior to -making an order under S. 5 allotting the building to another person. Even if the power conferred under s. ub-section (1) of sec. 10a may overlap the power conferred under sub-sec. (2) of S. 10 to a certain extent and in certain circumstances, that, by itself, would not be a ground for cutting down the ambit of sub-sec. (1) of S. 10a. ( 13 ) WE have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of Shri Chalapathy that the Controller had no power to evict the petitioner under sub-section (1) of S. 10a of the Act, because the vacancy of the building was intimated to the Controller after the petitioner unauthorisedly occupied it. (1) of S. 10a. ( 13 ) WE have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of Shri Chalapathy that the Controller had no power to evict the petitioner under sub-section (1) of S. 10a of the Act, because the vacancy of the building was intimated to the Controller after the petitioner unauthorisedly occupied it. ( 14 ) IT was next contended by Shri chalapathy that as the proceedings under S. 5 for allotment of the building, had already commenced, the Controller should have first decided whether the building should be allotted to the petitioner who had made an application for such allotment and that it was only after the Controller decided not to allot the building to him, the Controller could take eviction proceedings against the petitioner under S. 10a. ( 15 ) AS the impugned order of the controller, came within the ambit of sub-sec. (1) of S. 10a of the Act, we cannot quash that order and direct him to postpone taking action under that sub-section until the conclusion of the proceedings under S. 5 for allotment of the building. So long as the action taken by the Controller, fell within his power, this Court cannot, in exercise of its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution, strike down such action and substitute its discretion for the discretion of the Controller as to whether or not an unauthorised- occupant of a building should be evicted under S. 10a before making an order of allotment under S. 5. ( 16 ) IN our view, the learned single judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. Hence, we do not admit this appeal, but dismiss it. ( 17 ) SHRI Chalapathy submitted that we should grant some time to the appellant petitioner to vacate the building. The appellant petitioner has to approach the Controller for grant of time for vacating the building. If such an application is made, we have no doubt the Controller would consider it sympathetically. --- *** --- .