K. S. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter is taken up for final disposal it self having regard to the age of the proceedings. ( 2 ) IN the year 1983, certain complaints were lodged with the authorities stating that the premises in question has become vacant. On this the petitioner who is the owner of lie premises was directed to report vacancy. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition No. 9792/1984. This writ petition was dismissed on the ground that there was no final order. At the same lime, a notification was issued for allotment of the premises on 24th april, 1984 and the premises in question was allotted in favour of the 3rd respondent herein on 2slh august, 1987. The petitioner challenged this order by filing an appeal before the deputy commissioner (the first respondent herein ). ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the premises in question is not covered by part-iiof the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, because it is a new construction and that part-ii is attracted only to a building which completes 5 years from the dale of construction as per Section 2 (2) of ihc act. It may be noticed here that this plea as to the age of the prcm ises was ra ised by the petitioner in the very beginning. ( 4 ) THE deputy commissioner parity allowed ihc appeal and remanded the matterto the rent controller to give a definite finding as to the age of ihc building and also to examine the claim of the landlady that she required the premises for her own occupation. This mailer was again challenged by the petitioner as well as by the 3rd rcspondent-the original allottee. These two writ petition nos, 10479/1988 and 4623/1988 were dismissed by this courl in August 1988. The third respondent filed writ appeal No. 1343/1988 against the dismissal of his writ petitions. The said writ appeal was also dismissed in October 1988. The result was that the remind order made by the deputy commissioner became final and consequently the rent controller proceeded to determine the question. ( 5 ) BY an order dated 28th december, 1988, the rent controller (secondrespondent) decided the question in favour of a petitioner herein. He has noted ihc construction effected by the owner and held that more than 80% of the building is reconstructed. ( 5 ) BY an order dated 28th december, 1988, the rent controller (secondrespondent) decided the question in favour of a petitioner herein. He has noted ihc construction effected by the owner and held that more than 80% of the building is reconstructed. The rent controller also noticed that the petitioner is already residing in the portion of the adjacent building and compared the said building with the premises in question which clearly indicates that the premises in question was quite new ind therefore must be a new construction. The relevant part of the order reads thus;"when compared to the walls of the old house and the house in which Sri Shivaji is residing, the walls of old bouse made up of mud and measuring about 14" whereas the walls of the house in which shivaji is residing is measuring 9" and made up of bricks and cement and rcc roof and walls are well pastcred and there is stair-case to climb up and foundation stones are looks like now. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and also perused the documents placed before me. I have also inspected the premises. The plan is sanctioned for addition and alteration on 21-1-1983. Even though ihe plan is for alteration and addition, the landlord has completely built the premises newly demolishing the old walls and roof. The old walls which are still existing in the back portion, are approximately 14". Whereas the notified premises walls are, constructed with brick and concrete which measures 9". Further, the entire tiled roof has been removed and replaced with rcc roofing. The basement seems to be new. Even otherwise, except the basement entire structures is new and I may say that 80% of the building is reconstructed. I am therefore of the opinion that the building attracts the Provisions of Section 2 (2) of the K. R. C. Act, 1961 and is exempted from the purview of part-ii of the act. " ( 6 ) AGAINST this Order, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal. The said appeal wasallowed and the matter was again remanded by the deputy commissioner. The basis of the order of the deputy commissioner is as follows. " ( 6 ) AGAINST this Order, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal. The said appeal wasallowed and the matter was again remanded by the deputy commissioner. The basis of the order of the deputy commissioner is as follows. "a plain reading would go to show that when a building altogether new has been constructed, then part-ii will not be applicable; if an old building is demolished and a new building is put up in its place, then it cannot be said to be a new building constructed for the first time. Herein this case admittedly 80% of the building was reconstructed; as such it cannot be treated as a new building; hence it attracted the Provisions of part-ii of the K. R. C. Act, 1961. On perusal of the inspection report of the rent controller, it is observed that, the measurements of the building are contrary to the plan which was sanctioned by the corporation authority. " ( 7 ) THE deputy commissioner observed that it was the paramount duty of therent controller to give his finding on the observations made by the deputy commissioner in his order dated 29th february, 1988. The subsiance of the earlier order was to direct the rent controller to examine the age of the building and to find out whether the Provisions of the act for allotment will be applicable. In fact, that is the essence of the question before the authorities throughout. ( 8 ) IT is not possible for me to agree with the observations of the deputy commissionerthat if an old building is demolished and a new building is put up in its place, then it cannot be said to be a new building constructed for the first time. This is entirely a strange reasoning. Thereafter, the deputy commissioner states that in the instant case, 80% of the building was reconstructed and therefore, it was not a new building. ( 9 ) THE rent controller has noted in his Order, the reconstruction effected by thepetitioner. There is a specific statement that the landlady has completely built the premises only after demolishing the old walls and roof even though the plant sanctioned was only for alterations. ( 9 ) THE rent controller has noted in his Order, the reconstruction effected by thepetitioner. There is a specific statement that the landlady has completely built the premises only after demolishing the old walls and roof even though the plant sanctioned was only for alterations. The authorities under the act arc not concerned with the violation of the building bye-laws and it is for the corporation or the concerned authorities acting under any other law to take action in case the sanctioned plan has been disobeyed by putting up a new construction. So long as the construction put up results in bringing out a new building, the said building is entitled to the benefit of the Provisions of Section 2 (2) of the act. The only question for the purpose of attracting the Provisions of Section 2 of the act is to see whether the building in question was constructed after 1st august, 1957 and whether a period of five years has elapsed from the date of construction of such a building thereafter. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, the walls bave been replaced, new roof has been put up and the basement is said to be new. If so, I fail to see as to how this building can be treated as an old building. ( 11 ) IN these circumstances, the deputy commissioner entirely erred in holdingthat a proper finding was not given by the rent controller on the relevant issue. In the result, the order of the deputy commissioner impugned herein is set aside and the order of the rent controller dated 28th december, 1988 is restored. ( 12 ) WRIT petition is accordingly allowed. Rule made absolute. --- *** --- .