P. A. KULKARNI, J. ( 1 ) THE revision petition is directed against the order dt. Jan. 25, 1977, made by the District Judge, Belgaum, in H. R. C. Appeal No. 7 of 1975 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of eviction made by the munsiff, Belgaum in H. R. C. No, 11977 of 1973. ( 2 ) THE landlord filed the petition under S. 21. (1) (d) (h) (k) and (l) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rent Control Act') alleging that his son Mohamad Gous had studied upto 6th Standard and was unemployed. According to him, he intended to start some business so that his son Mohamad gous would look after the same and maintain himself. 'he intends to construct a building in the petition pre mises so as to enable his son to run the business. He cannot construct any building in the petition premises unless it is vacated by the tenant. Under these circumstances, he required the possession of the petition premises bona fide and reasonably for erecting a building so as to enable his son to run the shop. The petition premises had been let out to the tenan for running a fire wood depot; but the tenant has, started selling illicit liquor also. The tenant is a drunkard, and has become a source of nuisance to the neighbouring locality. Even on this ground, he sought for possession. The tenant, has erected a structure in some portion of the petition premises without his knowledge and consent and also without obtaining permission from the local authority. It is an unauthorised construction. The municipal authorities have now issued notices to him to demolish the building. Hence he required the petition premises for the demolition also. ( 3 ) THE tenant by his objections denied all the contentions of the landlord. ( 4 ) THE Murisiff, alter recording the evidence of the petitioner-landlord and of the respondent-tenant and marking some documents, ordered the eviction. The tenant approached the Dist id court in H. R. C. Appeal No. 7 of 1975. The District Judge, on a perusal of the records, allowed the appeal and dismissed the eviction petition. ( 5 ) THE landlord being aggrieved by the said order of the District Judge,. has come up with the present revision petition. The tenant approached the Dist id court in H. R. C. Appeal No. 7 of 1975. The District Judge, on a perusal of the records, allowed the appeal and dismissed the eviction petition. ( 5 ) THE landlord being aggrieved by the said order of the District Judge,. has come up with the present revision petition. ( 6 ) SHRI K. I. Bhatta, learned counsel for the revision petitioner-land lord. , contended that the landlord required the petition premises bonafide and reasonably for putting up a structure in the petition premises so as to enable his son to run a grocery shop. According to him, greater hardship would be caused to the land-lord if eviction was refused and no comparative hardship would be caused to the tenant if eviction was ordered. He further urged that as the Municipality had issued notices to him under S. 187 (9) of the karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipalities Act') calling upon him to demolish the building, he required the possession thereof for demolishing the construction. Shri N. A. Mandagt, learned counsel for the respondent- tenant, contended that the case did not come within the ambit of S. 21 (1) (h) or 21 (l) (k) of the Rent Control act and that at the most the case would fall under S. 21 (1) (l) of the rent Control Act. He, further urged that the petitioner had failed to prove that the petition premises was bona fide and reasonably required by him. ( 7 ) IT is undisputed that a small structure found in the petition premises is not constructed by the landlord. It appears from the material on record that the structure was built by the tenant himself perhaps for the purpose of storing the fuel. It is undisputed that the structure in question has been built without any permission from the local authorities. Thus, it becomes dear that the structure in question is an unauthorised construdtion. The Municipality, bclgaum, by issuing the notice ext. P-5 and the provisional order ext. P-6, and the final order Ext. P-7, has called upon the landlord as well as the tenant to dimolish the; building. Thus, it becomes dear that the structure in question is an unauthorised construdtion. The Municipality, bclgaum, by issuing the notice ext. P-5 and the provisional order ext. P-6, and the final order Ext. P-7, has called upon the landlord as well as the tenant to dimolish the; building. ( 8 ) S. 21 (1) (k) of the Rent Control act reads thus:-" (K) that the premises are required for the immediate purpose of the demolition ordered by any local authority or other competent authority;"the object of S. 21 (1) of the Rent Control act is to enable the landlord, to obtain possession of his own premises built by him on any of the grounds mentioned in S. 21 (1 ). Thus the premises the possession of which is sought under S. 21 (1) (k) must be, belonging to the landlord. If the building in question does not belong to the landlord, then S. 21 (1) (k) will not be attracted to the facts of the case at all. ( 9 ) FURTHER, there is nothing in Exts. P-5 to P-7 calling upon the landlord or the tenant to immediately demolish the building. The Municipality has called upon them to demolish the building as it is an unauthorised construction. Unless notices are issued for the purpose of immediate demolition, S. 21 (1) (k) of the Rent Control Act may not come into picture at all. If we turn to S. 213 of the Municipalities Act, we find that when the building is likely to fall or has proved ruinous or dangerous to the public at large and has thereby endangered the safety, then the local authority can cal upon the land-lord to immediately demolish the building. Therefore, looking to the wordings used in S. 21 (1) (k) of the rent Control Act, it appears to me that the landlord can seek possession of the premises if notice is issued to him under s. 213 of the Municipalities Act. Whatever it is. as already shown above, the structure which is required by the municipality to be demolished, does not belong to the landlord at all. Therefore, the landlord does not get any right to seek possession for the purpose of demolishing it immediately. Therelore, the District Judge was perfectly correct in holding that the case of the petitioner did not attract "s. 21 (l) (k) of the Rent Control Act. Therefore, the landlord does not get any right to seek possession for the purpose of demolishing it immediately. Therelore, the District Judge was perfectly correct in holding that the case of the petitioner did not attract "s. 21 (l) (k) of the Rent Control Act. ( 10 ) LET me now proceed to conm,r the second: point i. e. , bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlord. The petition premises as described in the petition is an open space. The word 'premises' used in the Rent Control Act not only includes a building but also includes a land not used for agricultural purposes. If the land lord sought for possession of the open site itself, even then his case might have come within the ambit of S. 21 (1) (h) of the Rent Control Act. But in this case, he wants the possession of the premises in order to enable him to put a structure in order to enable his son to run a grocery shop. Therefore, the petitioner's claim for possession might come at the most under S. 21 (1) (l ). Section 21 (1) (l) reads thus: -" (i) that where the premises are land, such land is reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for the erection of a new building which a local authority or other competent authority has approved or permitted him to build thereon;"in this case, the petitioner has clearly stated not only in his petition but also in the course of his evidence that he wants the possession of the open site, for the purpose of erecting a building in order to enable his son to run a grocery shop. But. unfortunately for him, he has not staged that the local authorities or the competent authority had approved or permitted him to build thereon. On the other hand, he has stated clearly in his evidence that he had not obtained any permission or approval from the Municipality to put up a building. Therefore, even S. 21 (1) (l) of the Rent Control Act will not come to his rescue. Therefore, the petition fails on this count. On the other hand, he has stated clearly in his evidence that he had not obtained any permission or approval from the Municipality to put up a building. Therefore, even S. 21 (1) (l) of the Rent Control Act will not come to his rescue. Therefore, the petition fails on this count. ( 11 ) WHEN I wanted to probe into the merits of the evidence relating to the bona fide and reasonable requirement, the learned counsel Shri Bhatta submitted that I need not discuss the evidence on this count and record a finding on this point as the petition is already held to be not falling under S. 21 (1) (k) or 21 (1) (l) of the Rent Control Act. Therefore, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the evidence relating to the bona fide and reasonable requirement. ( 12 ) IN the result, the revision petitition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ( 13 ) IN the circumstances obtaining in this case, I think that the interest of justice would be met if the parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout. --- *** --- .