MALIMATH, C. J. ( 1 ) AFTER admitting this Revision Petition and hearing the Learned Counsel for the respondent who entered appearance I propose to dispose of the case finally. ( 2 ) THE respondent sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he requires the premises in question bona - fide for his personal occupation. As he is a member of the Armed Forces he was rightly entitled to invoke the special provisions enacted for his benefit under Section 21b of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act' ). It is on that basis that the case was disposed of by the Court below. The respondent produced the certificate which according to him satisfies the requirement of Section 21b of the Act and sought eviction of the petitioner the court below accepting his plea has made an order of eviction. ( 3 ) IN this Revision Petition, Sri Shivaprakash, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, firstly submitted that assuming that the certificate contemplated by Section 21b of the Act has been issued by the prescribed authority, the mere pro-duction of the same does not entitle the landlord to obtain an order of eviction. He submitted that the landlord who is a member of the Armed forces and invokes the provisions of Section 21 B of the Act is further required to establish that the premises is 'bona fide' required by him occupafortion by himself or any member of his family. ( 4 ) THE Court below has proceeded on the basis that he production of the certificate under Section 21b of the Act is enough to enable the member of the Armed Forces to obtain an order of eviction. The Court below assumes that the production of the certificate dispenses with the requirement regarding proof of bona fides of the landlord. That is not the correct position in law. The landlord has also to establish that his requirement is bona fide. Interpreting the analogous provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1941, the supreme Court has in Shivaram Anand - v. -. Mrs. Radhabai Shantaram held that the certificate is conclusive proof that the land-lord does not possess any suitable residence in the local area, but not that he bona fide requires the same for occupation by himself or any member of his family. Mrs. Radhabai Shantaram held that the certificate is conclusive proof that the land-lord does not possess any suitable residence in the local area, but not that he bona fide requires the same for occupation by himself or any member of his family. Therefore, the landlord is required to establish that his requirement is bona fide. Mere production of the requisite certificate does not absolve him of the responsibility of proving that his requirement is bona fide. As this aspect of the matter has escaped the attention of the Court below and as it has proceeded to make an order of eviction merely on the ground that the requisite certificate has been produced, the order of the Court below cannot be sustained. The matter has therefore to be remitted, for fresh disposal. As the matter is being remitted, I make it clear that if a con-tention is raised to the effect that the certificate produced by the respondent is not issued by the prescribed authority the Court below shall examine the correctness of such a contention. ( 5 ) THE Court below is not right in assume that in matters falling under Section 21b of the Act the court is helpless in the matter of granting reasonable time to vacate the premises. It is no doubt true that having regard to the nature and intendment of Section 21b of the Act primacy is given to the requirement of the members of the Armed Forces in the matter of securing eviction. That factor has undoubtedly to be taken into account while granting reasonable time to vacate the premises. It does not mean that no time whatsoever can be granted. The Court bearing in mind the * ILR 1985 KAR 41 object of Section 2 1b of the Act may grant some reasonable time to enable the tenant to vacate the premises. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order of the Court below is set aside and the case is remitted to it with a direction to dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. No costs.