P. K. SHYAMSUNDAR, J. ( 1 ) 1 have been treated to a very terse argument on the scope of Section 21-A (1) and (2) of the Rent Control Act by Mr. Shekhar Shetty who appears in support of the petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is aggrieved by a notice issued by the Rent Controller under Section 21-A of the Act. The said notice is produced at Annexure-D and reads:" Whereas it has come to the knowledge of this authority that the respondent 2 along with other 3 persons is a joint-owner of premises Nos. 4 and 4/1, cunningham Crescent, Bangalore-52 and these properties were purchased by him along with others. And therefore Sri Suresh A. Lai respondent-2 in this case is directed to show cause as to why he should not be evicted under Section 21-A from premises No. 16,1 Floor, Seshadri Road, Bangalore. His reply should reach this authority before 24-11-1987 and he is directed to appear before this authority in person or through his advocate for enquiry on 30-11-1987 at 3. 00 p. m. "the petitioner it is said occupied the premises by virtue of an order made by the Rent controller himself as far back as 31-6-1963 in H. R. C. No. 338/acc (B)/63. Subsequently, in the year 1983 the Rent Controller issued a notice to the petitioner in hrcuao 118/1983,a copy ofwhich is produced at Annexure-A, branding him as an unauthorised tenant and asking him to vacate the controlled premises in question. On a representation made in that context by the petitioner to the Rent Controller stating inter alia that he was an authorised tenant inducted by the Rent Controller himself, the Rent Controller dropped the said proceedings. But once again in the year 1987 the Rent Controller resorted to the issuance of notice under Section 5 of the Act but even that proceeding was eventually dropped at the behest of the petitioner. The impugned notice, Annexure-D is the latest of the assault by the Rent Controller on the petitioner's entitlement to hold the controlled premises in question and is different from the two notices issued earlier in that it is issued in the purported exercise of power by the Rent Controller under Section 21-A of the Act. It is against the aforesaid notice, Annexure-D, that the petitioner has taken up cudgels in this petition. It is against the aforesaid notice, Annexure-D, that the petitioner has taken up cudgels in this petition. ( 3 ) THE point raised and argued by Mr. Shetty with considerable pertinacity is that the Rent Controller has no powers either under Section 21-A (1) or under Section 21-A (2) of the Act to evict a person in occupation of a controlled premises. According to Mr. Shetty all that the Rent Controller could do in the circumstances is to seek the conviction of the person contravening Section 21-A (1) or (2) of the Act and nothing else. It is pertinent to refer out Section 21-A in order that the view point of Mr. Shetty could be better appreciated. The said section reads:" 21-A. Vacation of residential building in certain cases: (1) notwithstanding anything in this Act, on and from the date of coming into force of this section, (a) any person who is in occupation or possession of a residential building as a tenant on allotment by the Controller, shall, within one year from the said date vacate such building if he owns in his name or in the name of any member of is family, a residential building in the same city, town or village (hereinafter referred to as 'his own building'); (b) such person shall be entitled to recover possession of his own building, in case it is let out to any other person and he may apply to the prescribed authority for eviction of such other person: provided that no such application, shall be entertained unless the applicant has given notice of not less than four months requiring'the person sought to be evicted to vacate the said building; (c) xxx xxx xxx. (d) xxx xxx xxx. (2) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, any person who being in occupation or possession of a residential building as a tenant on allotment by the Controller acquires or constructs on or after the 20th day of August, 1976 either in his own name or in the name of any member of the family a residential building in the same city, town, or village shall within such time as may be prescribed, vacate the building of which he is the tenant. (3) Any person who contravenes the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1), or sub-section (2) shall, on conviction, be punished with simple imprisonment which may extent to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand or both. "notwithstanding the long concepts of the section a plain reading of the section indicates that it obliges a person in possession of a controlled premises to vacate that premises if, within one year from the date of the enacting the said provision brought into the statute book by Act 66 of 1976 on the 20th of August, 1976, the tenant happens to acquire in his own name or in the name of any one in his family, a building in tne same city or village he will have to occupy the same. In other words, if he has his own building the law says he cannot remain in possession of a controlled premises. Section 21-A (b) also says that such a person can take the aid of the Rent controller in taking possession of his own premises. Section 21-A (3) envisages the prosecution of a person in possession of a controlled premises despite owning a building either by himself or through any of his family members. ( 4 ) BE that as it may, learned counsel Sri Shetty relied on a decision of this Court in S. K. Beeranna v M/s. Kwality Restaurant, 1991 (2) Kar. LJ. 602 (DB) : ILR 1991 (3) Karnataka 2599 (DB ). In that case after a close analysis of Section 21-A their lordships held that continuance of a tenant in a controlled premises even after acquiring a premises of his own would expose him to criminal prosecution but in no circumstances can such a person be evicted from the controlled premises by a Rent controller since the Controller has no jurisdiction to order eviction. This is what their lordships said:" One redeeming feature as far as Section 21-A (1) is concerned is that it enables the prescribed authority, after making summary enquiry, to evict the person even by use of force and put the tenant in possession of his own building. That is totally absent in Section 21-A (2); because, it merely throws an obligation on the tenant to vacate the building within such time as may be prescribed. What is the consequence of not vacating the premises is not made known. That is totally absent in Section 21-A (2); because, it merely throws an obligation on the tenant to vacate the building within such time as may be prescribed. What is the consequence of not vacating the premises is not made known. There is an ominous silence as far as that vital aspect is concerned. Therefore, the order of the House Rent and Accommodation Controller directing eviction under Section 21-A (2) of the Act is totally without jurisdiction and it is even perverse. "of course in this case the Controller is yet to travel the whole hog chase to make an order of eviction against the tenant. But the petitioner is one of those persons who believes in being fore-armed after being fore-warned. The moment he got a notice under Annexure-D he geared himself to the battle and has come to this court and obtained an order of stay of Annexure-D and has presently challenged the same. From a reading of the section supra it becomes clear that the Controller cannot arrogate to himself the power to evict the petitioner from the controlled premises acting under section 21-A of the Act. The only power available to him therein is to bring to heels a recalcitrant tenant by prosecuting him for violation of Section 21-A of the Act. Even if the petitioner had remained quiet and not answered to the summons of the controller under Annexure-D, the latter could not have given him marching orders from the premises. ( 5 ) BE that as it may, as I have pointed out, that stage has not yet arrived but it is enough to notice that the communication at Annexure-D itself is deficient in regard to vital matters. Nowhere in the notice it is stated that the petitioner has acquired possession of the premises at Nos. 4 and 4/1, Cunningham Crescent, Bangalore-52. There is no mention whether the said premises is residential or non-residential. What is more the notice itself makes it clear that the petitioner has not acquired it exclusively but owned it jointly with two others. It is not mentioned whether those two are his relatives or members of his family. Without more the notice at Annexure-D is palpably erroneous and in the absence of necessary particulars enjoined by section 21-A the very notice becomes nonest factum in law making it clearly purposeless and futile. It is not mentioned whether those two are his relatives or members of his family. Without more the notice at Annexure-D is palpably erroneous and in the absence of necessary particulars enjoined by section 21-A the very notice becomes nonest factum in law making it clearly purposeless and futile. The other aspect of the matter being whether the Rent Controller could eject a person under Section 21-A of the Act, the answer is provided by the bench case decision supra in the negative and thus it becomes clear the attack on the notice at Annexure-D is well-founded and deserves to be upheld. ( 6 ) IN the result, therefore, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Rule affirmed. The Controller is directed not to take any action in pursuance of Annexure-D under Section 21-A. Government Pleader is directed to file the memo of appearance and she is given four weeks time to do it. --- *** --- .