ORDER Murlidher Rao, J.—Though this matter is listed for orders to-day, by consent of advocates, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. This is a tenant's petition challenging the order dated 19-1-1985, passed by the Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, in HRC No. 2926 of 1983. The respondent is the land owner. She initiated eviction proceedings under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The family of the respondent consists of herself and four daughters. Two daughters are married. One of the married daughters is staying at Madras and another married daughter is staying in Bangalore. The remaining two daughters are school going students. Advocate for the respondent submitted that they are now college going students. The premises occupied by the owner consists of a small verandah, a hall measuring 9 x 8', bath room and lavatory. This is the description given in the Judgment of the Court below. However, Mr. Shivaraj Patil for the petitioner submitted that in addition to this, a kitchen is in possession of the land owner, which fact is said to have been admitted. The portion in the occupation of the tenant consists of a room measuring 10' x 8', another room measuring 10' x 8', kitchen and lavatory. The Court below has come to the conclusion, after looking into the sanctioned plan, that the entire house is built as one unit. The Court below, after considering the fact that the petitioner is a widow and that there is no male member in her family, has granted the decree. In coming to this conclusion, the Court below has taken into consideration the relevant circumstances that the land owner has two daughters and son-in-law at Bangalore happens to be the only male member in the family and thought it proper and just to hold that the accommodation is not sufficient. Having so held the Court below has granted time to vacate the premises till the end of August 1985. 3. In this Court, Mr. Shivaraj Patil for the tenant submitted that the landlord respondent's husband had made an application under Section 5 of the Rent Control Act, for releasing the property in his favour and that application is rejected. Therefore he contended that in view of the provision of Section 45 of the Act, the present application was not maintainable. In this Court, Mr. Shivaraj Patil for the tenant submitted that the landlord respondent's husband had made an application under Section 5 of the Rent Control Act, for releasing the property in his favour and that application is rejected. Therefore he contended that in view of the provision of Section 45 of the Act, the present application was not maintainable. Secondly, he contended that since there are three members in the family, the accommodation in occupation of the land owner is quite sufficient. He also contended that the married daughter and son-in-law are not the members of the family. 4. Section 45 is a bar only when same issues between the same parties have been finally decided in a former proceeding under the Act; the Court is precluded from adjudicating those matters again. The consideration under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act are not the same as those under Clause (h) of Section 21(1). In this view of the matter, I am not impressed by the argument. It was contended by Mr. Shivaraj Patil that in the proceedings under Section 5 as well as proceedings under Section 21 (1), the common issue was the requirement of the land owner. But the contention ignores the fact that what is required to be established under Section 5 is only the requirement and not "reasonable and bona fide requirement" as contemplated under Section 21 (1) (h). Under Section 5, discretion is given to the Rent Controller to give the building to landlord for his use or occupation; his case is considered along with other intending allottees, and howsoever strong his personal requirement may be, power being discretionary, owner cannot claim it as a matter of right and secondly if public authority or other persons establish their need or requirement, the Controller may prefer them. Further as provided in Section 8, the Controller has to observe the principles of allotment. The enquiry contemplated for the allotment includes the allotment to be done in favour of public authorities, or other person specified in the notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 8. Rule 5 of the Rules prescribes the procedure for issuing directions for allotment Such procedures and rights of third parties or public authority is foreign to the enquiry under Section 21 (1) (h). Rule 5 of the Rules prescribes the procedure for issuing directions for allotment Such procedures and rights of third parties or public authority is foreign to the enquiry under Section 21 (1) (h). While the considerations under Section 21 (1) (h) are bona fide and reasonable requirement of landlord and comparative hardship of landlord and tenant, such considerations are absent while making release order under Section 5. In Srinivasaiah v. Dy. Commissioner, Bangalore & Ors. 1981(1) KLJ 458 it was observed thus : "Clause (h) of the proviso to Sub-section (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. 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-section (1) of Section (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". 5. I have no hesitation to hold that the two provisions are enacted to function in different situations and there is nothing common between them. Rejection of landlord's request for release order under Section 5 has no bearing or relevance in considering his application under Section 21(1)(h). 6. Moreover in this case, the proceedings were initiated in 1983. During the pendency of the proceedings, the circumstances in the family have considerably changed. In these circumstances the contention urged that Section 45 is a bar has to be rejected. 7. So far as the second contention is concerned, it has to be held in favour of the land owner as she has clearly stated that there is no male member in her family and that Her daughter and son-in-law are coming frequently and there is insufficient accommodation. In these circumstances, the finding recorded by the Court below does not call for interference. In these circumstances, the finding recorded by the Court below does not call for interference. Hence this revision petition is rejected. No costs. 8. Mr. Shivaraj Patil submitted that it is difficult to secure alternative accommodation and therefore some reasonable time should be granted. Mr. N.U. Narasimhan for the landlord submitted that the proceedings are initiated in 1983; it would be just and reasonable to grant time till the end of June 1987. Accepting this submission on behalf of landlord, time is granted till the end of June 1987; the tenant has to vacate the premises on or before 30-6-1987 subject to the payment of rents regularly, as and when they accrue.