CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is mis-conceived. There is no error of jurisdiction committed by the executing Court vis-a-vis the petitioner. The petitioner, who was the judgment-debtor was sought to be evicted from the godown of which the respondent is the owner. An objection was raised on behalf of the judgment- debtor inter alia contending that the decree was a nullity and therefore not executable because the Court which passed the decree had no jurisdiction to pass such a decree having regard to Section 2 (7) (iv) (bc) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short the 'act' ). That contention came to be negatived and execution was directed to be proceeded with. Therefore, the present revision petition. ( 2 ) MR. T. S. Ramachandra, l. ke his counter-part in the executing Court, contended that the construction put up on the language of sub-clause (bc) of clause (iv) of sub-section (7) of Section 2 of the Act should be such as to exclude the operation or application of the Act in respect of buildings of the Co-operative Society whether it is the owner of a godown or a tenant of a godown. There is no dispute that the respondent is the owner of the premises in question which is a godown occupied by the petitioner-Cooperative Society as a tenant. ( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the contention one has to look at the language of the clause in question and the language of the rest of the Section. ( 4 ) SUB-CLAUSE (bc) of clause (iv) of sub-section (7) of Section 2 of the Act reads as follows:" (BC) to any building used or intended to be used as a godown belonging to a Cooperative Marketing Society, a co-operative Consumers Society or a Co-operative primary Service Society registered or deemed to be registered under the karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1959". Adopting the Golden Rule of construction, that is, by giving the words used their normal and natural meaning, not taking it out of context, one cannot have any doubt that building is the subject, but not every building belonging to a Co- operative society, but building used or intended to be used as a godown. Adopting the Golden Rule of construction, that is, by giving the words used their normal and natural meaning, not taking it out of context, one cannot have any doubt that building is the subject, but not every building belonging to a Co- operative society, but building used or intended to be used as a godown. In other words, there is a dichotomy of buildings which are owned by a co-operative Marketing Society, a Co-operative Consumers Society or a Co-operative primary Service Society registered or deemed to have been registered under the karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and buildings owned by the Co-operative societies other than the godowns. One Class will fall in the dichotomy of a building or buildings used or intended to be used as godowns and the other class of these buildings which are not used for godowns or intended to be used as godown will fall outside. If this dichotomy is kept in mind act is made applicable to certain buildings owned by the Co-operative Society which are not used as godowns or which are not intended to be used as godowns. But, in case of other buildings the Act applies. Therefore, the expression 'belonging to' must necessarily relate to the building with the qualification that it is used or intended to be used as a godown. If that is the proper construction, the learned Judge of the executing Court has taken the correct view. ( 5 ) WHAT sub-section (7) of Section 2 provides for is that non- application of the act to buildings owned by persons, juristic or otherwise enumerated in the sub-clauses but not the buildings tenanted by them. ( 6 ) THIS Court fully endorses that view and rejects this revision petition. --- *** --- .