ORDER H. Rangavittalachar, J.—This is a tenants revision petition against the order of eviction passed against him by the Judge of the Additional Small Causes, Bangalore in HRC No. 1787 of 1993. 2. Respondent to this revision petition is the owner of the petition premises hereinafter referred to as the LANDLORD; for clarity; He filed an eviction petition against the revision Petitioner (Hereinafter called as TENANTS) in respect of a residential premises bearing No. 50, 11th Main Road, Lakkasandra Extension, Bangalore which consists of a RCC house having 2 bed rooms, hall, kitchen, bathroom, toilet etc., in occupation of the tenants who are presently paying monthly rent of Rs. 950/-; It was contended in the eviction petition that the premises originally belonged to one Narayanaswamy - the father-in-law of the 'landlord'. During his lifetime, the Bangalore Rent and Accommodation Controller allotted the schedule premises on an application made by the revision Petitioner No. 1 i.e., the Lakhanpal National Limited Company for its use on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-; The said Narayanaswamy by his last will bequeathed the schedule premises in favour of the Petitioner. After the death of Narayanaswamy, the revision Petitioners attorned the tenancy in favour of the Respondent. 3. That the 'landlord' has a family of four persons i.e., his wife and two children and at present is residing in a rented house consisting of a meagre accommodation of only a hall and a kitchen. Accommodation available to them is insufficient, besides he also intends to shift to his own house. Hence the premises is required reasonably and bonafide for the landlord's own use and accommodation. Tenants are therefore liable to be evicted under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as THE ACT for short). 4. Eviction petition was contested by the tenants by filing a detailed statement of objections. It was contended by them, that the premises was allotted for the office of the company i.e., for non-residential purposes with the prior permission of the Rent and Accommodation Controller under Section 11 of the Act. Landlord therefore cannot ask for residential accommodation. Besides, in view of the son of Narayanaswamy - the executor of the will, having filed a suit for partition, Eviction Petitioner/landlord cannot claim title to the property as the title is under dispute. Landlord therefore cannot ask for residential accommodation. Besides, in view of the son of Narayanaswamy - the executor of the will, having filed a suit for partition, Eviction Petitioner/landlord cannot claim title to the property as the title is under dispute. Tenant also denied the requirement of the landlord for occupation as neither reasonable nor bonafide. 5. Learned trial Judge has allowed the eviction petition, rejecting the defence. He has held that part of the premises allotted to the tenant is being used by the tenant for residential purposes, for the benefit of the 2nd revision Petitioner, the manager of the Company and there is no prohibition under the provisions of the Act, for a landlord to seek premises though, being used for non-residential purposes, for his residence. 6. On the question of requirement of the landlord for self occupation, trial Judge has held that the evidence led by the landlord, clearly proves that he is residing in an insufficient rented accommodation, in as much as, landlord has two school going children and the accommodation available is only a hall and a kitchen without even a single bedroom. Therefore, the desire to shift to his own house is reasonable and bonafide. 7. On the question of hardship, learned trial Judge has held that the tenants have adduced evidence, stating that they have been making attempts to secure alternative accommodation and having regard to their capacity, it is not difficult for them to secure alternative accommodation. Per contra, if eviction is refused, landlord will suffer greater hardship for want of accommodation. 8. Learned trial Judge has ruled out the feasibility of partial eviction on the ground that the premises cannot accommodate both the family of landlord and the Office of the Company, and the residence of the Manager. 9. This order as stated is under challenge. 10. Before this Court, learned Counsel appearing for the tenant Sri Nanjundaswamy though did not dispute about the strength of the family of the landlord and his residing in an insufficient rented accommodation but contended: 11. Firstly, that when the son of the executor of the will has filed a suit for partition, the title of the landlord is under dispute, therefore he cannot seek premises for his self occupation. 12. Firstly, that when the son of the executor of the will has filed a suit for partition, the title of the landlord is under dispute, therefore he cannot seek premises for his self occupation. 12. This contention overlooks the fact, that the tenant after the death of the executor of the will attorned the tenancy, in favour of the present landlord, and has been paying the monthly rents. Under circumstances, the tenant is estopped having regard to the principle of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, to deny the title, of the landlord. Hence there is no merit in this contention. 13. Secondly, he contended, that the premises is a "non- residential" one in as much as, the Rent and Accommodation Controller, during the time of allotting the premises, in favour of the tenant in exercise of the powers under Section 11 of the Act has ordered the premises to be converted to non-residential use. The monthly rent of the premises at present is Rs. 950/-, hence having regard to the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, and also the decision of the Supreme Court in Rudramurthy Vs. Barkathullah Khan and Others, ILR 1998 Kar 3371, the eviction petition was not maintainable and the petition should be dismissed in limine. In support of the said contention, learned Counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Tatanagar Transport Corporation Vs. Dharmapal, ILR (1985) KAR 2621; Smt. Saira Khattun vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1983 Kar 205 and that of the decision of the Madras High Court in T. Dakshinamoorthy Vs. Thulja Bai and Another, AIR 1952 Mad 413 and that of the Supreme Court in Shivram Anand Shiroor Vs. Radhabai Shantram Kowshik and Another, AIR 1984 SC 786 . Relevant ones will be referred to at the appropriate place. 14. Controverting the above submission, learned Counsel appearing for the landlord submitted, that as long as, the premises is structurally built to suit for residential purposes, mere user of it for non-residential activity will not make the premises a "non-residential" one within the meaning of Section 31 of the "Act", so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the Rent Court; Learned Counsel relied in support of the said contention on the decision of the Supreme court in Buschind Schmitz Private Limited vs. P.T. Mengani, AIR 1997 SC 1969 and Shivanand Govind Nayak Vs. Vivekanand Shrikamal Patil, ILR (1990) KAR 1252. Vivekanand Shrikamal Patil, ILR (1990) KAR 1252. 15. Having regard to the rival contentions on this point, the question that arises for consideration is: Whether the schedule premises is a "Non-residential building", the monthly rent of which exceeds Rs. 500/- so as to exclude the application of the provisions of Part v. of Karnataka Rent Control Act and consequently the eviction petition is incompetent. 16. The answer depends upon the interpretation of the phrase, "Non-residential Building" occurring in Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. 17. After the coming into force of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, the eviction of tenants is not governed by General Law but by the provisions of the Act. Part v. of the Act provides for "Control of eviction of tenants and obligation of landlords". Section 21 occurring in the said part provides that eviction of tenants from any kind of premises can be made only on the existence of situations as detailed under Section 21(1)(a) to 21(1)(p). Section 31 which is the relevant section for the present purpose provides for "Exemption in respect of certain buildings". It reads as under: Section 31 exemption in respect of certain buildings: Nothing contained in this Part shall apply to a non-residential building the monthly rent of which exceeds five hundred rupees or the annual rental value of which exceeds six thousand rupees: Provided that the exemption under this section shall not apply: (i) to any building taken on lease by a public authority or by an educational institution; or (ii) to any building by more than one tenant each paying monthly rent exceeding five hundred rupees or an annual rent not exceeding six thousand rupees. 18. The Constitutional validity of this section had become the subject matter of the decision of this Court and the Supreme Court. This Court in H. Padmanabha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR (1986) KAR 2480 had declared Section 31 as unconstitutional; However the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Shobha Sundar vs. H.V. Rajan Civil Appeal No. 13754 of 1996 and in Rudramurthy Vs. Barkathulla Khan, ILR 1998 Kar 3371 declared the said section as constitutionally valid. The resulting position now being that in a case and where the building is a "non-residential" one, rental value of which exceeds Rs. 500/-, the owner of the premises seeking eviction of the tenant cannot resort to the provisions of the "Act". 19. Barkathulla Khan, ILR 1998 Kar 3371 declared the said section as constitutionally valid. The resulting position now being that in a case and where the building is a "non-residential" one, rental value of which exceeds Rs. 500/-, the owner of the premises seeking eviction of the tenant cannot resort to the provisions of the "Act". 19. The "Non-residential building" referred to in the Section 31 is not defined in the Act. The Act has defined a "Building" under Section 3(a) as follows: Section 3: Definitions: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- (a) 'Building' means any building or hut or part of a building or hut other than a farm house, let or to be let separately for residential or non-residential purposes and includes- (i) the garden, grounds and out houses, if any, appurtenant to such building, hut or part of such building or hut and let or to be let alongwith such building or hut or part of building or hut; (ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord or the use in such building or hut or part of a building or hut; (iii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof, but does not include a room or other accommodation in a hotel or a lodging house. 20. The word "Residential" has been defined in the Webster's III International Dictionary Unabridged as, "Designed as a residence"; Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary unabridged II Edition defines "Residential" as, "Characterised by or suitable for residence. 21. Thus, by a reading of the definition of the word "Building" and the dictionary meaning of the word "Non-Residential" occurring in Section 31 of the Act, it is manifest that the section refers only to the buildings adopted or constructed for non-residential use. If the building is constructed, or is adoptable for residential purposes, merely, by the fact, that the said building is also used for non-residential activity, will not make the building a 'non-residential' one so as to attract the provisions of Section 31 of the Act. 22. When a "Building" can be called "Residential" in the context of Rent Legislations, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Busching Schmitz Private Limited Vs. 22. When a "Building" can be called "Residential" in the context of Rent Legislations, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Busching Schmitz Private Limited Vs. P.T. Menghani and Another, AIR 1977 SC 1569 ; The facts therein are, "The landlord of a certain premises had let out, the same to a Company for carrying on its business, and also use part of it, for the residence of the manager. The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(A) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for occupation for his residential purposes. The eviction petition, was contested by the tenant, on the ground that the premises was being used for residential-cum-commercial purposes and hence it was not a "residential" one and eviction petition was not maintainable"; The Court while rejecting such a contention held that it is not the user of the building that determines whether a premises is "residential" or "non-residential" but the nature of the construction and the adaptability for "residential purposes" which determines the same; Posing the question whether the user of premises determines, the Hon'ble Court states: Admittedly, the building was let out for commercial purposes also. Is the purpose of the lease decisive of the character of the accommodation? For a long time it was used as an office of the tenants business the manager also residing in a part thereof. Does user clinch the issue? At present, the main use to which the building is used is as a residence of the manager. 23. The Court on user test, states: Use or purpose of the letting is no conclusive test but what determines the residential character of a building", Whatever is suitable or adoptable for residential users even by making some changes can be designated 'residential premises' and once it is residential in the liberal sense Section 14(A) stands attracted. Dictionary meaning, common sense understanding and architectural engineering concur in the correctness of this construction. 24. Dictionary meaning, common sense understanding and architectural engineering concur in the correctness of this construction. 24. Noting the facts in the said case viz., that the house was constructed on a land given for constructing residence, the Court took the said factor also into consideration for deciding the nature of the building in the said case and held: The house we are considering was built on land given for constructing a residence is being used even now for residence, is suitable otherwise for residence and is being credibly demanded for the Respondents residence. Residential suitability being the basic consideration this building fills the bill. Nothing said in the affidavit in opposition puts it out of the pale of residential accommodation. A building which reasonably accommodates a residential user is a residential accommodation - nothing less, nothing else. The purpose test will enable Officers who own houses to defeat the Government by pleading that they do not own, 'residential premises because the lease is for commercial use', built though it was and suitable though it is for residence. (Underlined by me) 25. Thus indicating that the purpose for which the building is built is a factor to be taken into consideration; In Boddu Narayanamma Vs. Venkatarama Aluminium Co. and Others, AIR 1999 SC 3549 a similar question, about the how of a building, has to be categorised, as residential or non-residential, came up for consideration while interpreting Section 19(3)(a) of A.P. Building (Lease, rent and eviction) Control Act. It was held that where a building having residential and non-residential portions, and let out, under a composite lease, has to be categorised, as either a residential or a non-residential building; having regard to its nature, accommodation Dominant purpose of lease, primary use of the building and other relevant circumstances of the facts of each case. 26. Thus, what emerges from the discussion of above is "That Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act covers cases where the building is not adopted or suitable or constructed for residential purposes. If the building is constructed or can be adopted without structural alterations or is suitable for residential purposes having all the facilities for residence, then such building is outside the purview of Section 31 of the Act. 27. If the building is constructed or can be adopted without structural alterations or is suitable for residential purposes having all the facilities for residence, then such building is outside the purview of Section 31 of the Act. 27. Coming to the contention of Sri Nanjundaswamy - learned Counsel appearing for the tenant, that a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tatanagar Transport Corporation Vs. Dharmapal, ILR (1985) KAR 2621 and a Division Bench of this Court in Shaira Khatoon Vs. State, AIR 1983 Kar 205 have evolved the 'user test' to determine whether the building is a residential or a non-residential one, and the same test also has to be adopted in the present case also, in my view, the said two decisions have not declared that the "user test" is the determining factor. In Tatanagar Transport Corporation's case, because of the fact that the building was not structurally adopted nor was capable of being used for residence, it applied the 'user test', as the following paragraph of the judgment indicate. There is also no evidence in the instant case to show that any portion of the premises has the necessary amenities for its use for residential purposes or whether the premises admits of any such alteration so as to convert any portion thereof for residential use. The admitted and established facts in the instant case led to the irresistible conclusion that the premises in question is a non-residential one and was let out for non- residential purposes: In Shaira Khattun's case, the Court was interpreting Section 31(C) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. It was held "That a building cannot be treated as a residential building under the Act unless it is let for residential purposes or can be let for residential purposes, in its present condition" (Underlined by me); Here again the Court recognised the importance of the structural adaptability of the building for "Residential purpose. 28. Thus the decisions have no bearing to the facts of this case. 29. In so far as the next contention of Sri Nanjundaswamy - learned Counsel, viz., that "when the rent and accommodation controller" has ordered in exercise of his powers under Section 11 of the "Act" for converting the premises into a non-residential one that concludes the case on the question that the premises is a non-residential one, coming within the purview of Section 31 of the "Act". In the first place, the order of the rent and accommodation controller in this regard is not produced so as to appreciate what exactly he had ordered viz., "Whether to alter the building structurally or only permitting to use the building in the present form, for non- residential purposes. 30. Secondly, it has to be stated that Section 11 of the Act speaks of conversion of the building. Section 11 of the Act, reads as under: Section 11: Conversion of residential building: Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no residential building shall be converted into a non-residential building except with the permission in writing of the Controller. (2) If the Controller does not within sixty days from the date of receipt of an application for permission under Sub-section (1), pass any order on the application, he shall be deemed to have granted the permission applied for. (3) Any person who contravenes the provisions of Sub-section (1) shall, on conviction, be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. 31. The true purport and meaning of Section 11 came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Shivanand Govind Nayak Vs. Vivekanand Shrikamal Patil, ILR (1990) KAR 1252. The facts in the said case are: A residential building was allotted by the Rent and Accommodation Controller for non-residential use. On the basis of Section 11 of the Act it was contended, without the prior permission of the Controller permitting such a use, no allotment, would have taken place. 32. Repelling such a contention and referring to New Websters Dictionary Meaning of the word 'CONVERSION' and to the decision of the Supreme Court in Keshavan Vs. Amukutti, AIR 1998 SC 339, it has been held "that the word CONVERSION referred to in Section 11 was in respect of a building which underwent structural alteration and not a change of user". This is how the Court has held: The word "Conversion" is used in the context of conversion of a residential building into a non-residential building. The section specifically states that "no residential building shall be converted into a non-residential building". It does not say that "no residential building shall be used for non-residential purpose". Therefore, it is referable to structural alteration in a residential building for converting it into a non-residential building. The section specifically states that "no residential building shall be converted into a non-residential building". It does not say that "no residential building shall be used for non-residential purpose". Therefore, it is referable to structural alteration in a residential building for converting it into a non-residential building. A mere use of a residential building for non-residential purpose without any structural alterations or additions, does not amount to conversion of a residential building into a non-residential building as the building remains as it is, and as the one built for residential purpose. According to New Webster's Dictionary, College Edition, 4th re-print 1988, the word "Conversion" means "the act or state of converting; a physical transformation from one state or form to another; a change of character; form or function; the diversion of a thing from its original proper or intended use". If the Legislature intended that the change in the intended use also would or should amount to conversion, the wording of the section should have been quite different. The interpretation placed by us on Section 11 of the Act also receives support from a decision of the Supreme Court in P. Kesavan's case. 33. In P. Kesavan's case, the Supreme Court considered a similar provision contained in Section 17 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Section 17 of the aforesaid Act was as follows: 17: Conversion of buildings and failure by landlord to make necessary repairs.-1) No residential building shall be converted into a non- residential building or vice-versa and no such building shall be divided into separate portions for letting on rent or for other purposes except with the permission in writing of the Accommodation Controller. 34. Provided that where such conversion involves structural alteration of the building, the consent of the landlord shall also be necessary. 35. In the aforesaid case, the building was used for non-residential purpose by the tenant and the bonafide need of the landlord was stated to be for the use and occupation of the landlord and his family for the residential purpose. The contention putforth was that such a need did not justify the eviction of the tenant. After reproducing Section 17 of the Kerala Act referred to above, the Supreme Court held thus: 10. It appears clear that this conversion as contemplated for which permission was required is conversion by the landlord. The contention putforth was that such a need did not justify the eviction of the tenant. After reproducing Section 17 of the Kerala Act referred to above, the Supreme Court held thus: 10. It appears clear that this conversion as contemplated for which permission was required is conversion by the landlord. Quite apart from the fact that in this case there was no conversion of the building sought. The building was used for non-residential purpose and the purpose for which the building was sought was for residential purpose. It appears to us that putting to a different purpose the user of the building is not conversion of the building as such. It has been found that the building as it is without any structural change can be put to residential purpose. There was no conversion of the building as such involved in this case but a change of user of the building. Further-more in any event, the proviso to Sub-section (I) makes it clear, in our opinion, that such conversion as contemplated by Section 17 of the Act for which permission in writing of the Accommodation Controller required is in case of change of the user of the premises by the tenant and not by the landlord. The use of the expression "such conversion" in the proviso indicates that in case of conversion by the tenant permission is required on the consent of the landlord. Therefore, the absence of permission in writing of the Accommodation Controller in this case does not in our opinion affect the position. This appears to be the view of the Kerala High Court on this aspect of the matter. See in this connection Muhammed Vs. Abdul Rahiman Kerala, LR 874 and Das Naik Vs. Narayanan, 1980 Ker LT 951. This appears to be the correct view of law. Our attention was also not drawn to any decision of the Kerala High Court which has taken any contrary view. The view held by the Kerala High Court in this aspect has been relied by the High Court in the judgment under appeal. It seems to be logical view, We would therefore follow that view. In view of the proviso explaining the ambit of that requirement that permission sought for or mentioned in Section 17(I) is in respect of the different user by the tenant and not by the landlord (sic). It seems to be logical view, We would therefore follow that view. In view of the proviso explaining the ambit of that requirement that permission sought for or mentioned in Section 17(I) is in respect of the different user by the tenant and not by the landlord (sic). The High Court has also observed the term "convert does not denote a mere change in the mode of occupation but covers only alterations of the physical features, the prescriptions of Section 17 are not attracted to the present case at all. Admittedly, the building in question has rooms which can be used as bed rooms, sitting room etc. and it has a kitchen and dining hall. No alteration or conversion is required if the building is to be used for residential purposes. 36. It is also relevant to state in this context, for effecting major structural alterations to a building so as to convert a non- residential building into a residential building or vice-versa the permission of local authorities under the relevant local Board's Act, viz., if the building is situated within the corporation limits under Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act or if in the under the Karnataka Municipalities Act has to be obtained. 37. It is not the case of the tenant that before or after the premises were leased to him the building was structurally, so altered, as to make it unfit for residential use. 38. As stated, the description of the building stated in the eviction petition clearly indicates that the building was constructed for residential use and is adoptable or suitable for the said use. Landlord seeks eviction on the ground of self occupation for residential use only. And even the tenant has been using part of it for residential purposes. And in the absence of any plea and evidence that the building has now become unfit for residential use, the nature of the building and its adoptability continues to be what it was. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention also. 39. From the discussion of the above, I hold that the schedule premises is a residential building and therefore the Rent Control Court had jurisdiction to try the eviction petition under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act and the eviction petition filed was maintainable. 40. I do not find any merit in this revision petition. Petition therefore is dismissed. No costs.