1. The appellant became owner of the premises while he was occupying it unauthorisedly. There is a protracted litigation between the parties. Suffice it to say that while the matter was pending in second appeal in the Karnataka High Court, the appellant withdrew the appeal with a permission to initiate proceedings before the appropriate court to take benefit of Sections 31-B and 31-C of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 as amended by the Amendment Act, 67 of 1976. It is thus obvious that the appellant gave up all the points which were pending before the High Court in the second appeal and wanted to agitate only the question of law arising out of the amendment. It would be useful to reproduce the provisions of Section 31-B:
"31..(B) Voluntary declaration.--(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act--
(i) any landlord who has occupied or let out a residential building or
(ii) any person who has occupied such building as a tenant, in contravention of Section 4 or Section 5, may within sixty days from the date of coming into force of this section, make declaration in this behalf to the prescribed authority:
Provided that the prescribed authority may entertain the declaration after the expiry of the said period of sixty days if it is satisfied that the declaring was prevented by sufficient cause from filling the declaration in time.
(2) Such declaration shall contain the following particulars namely--
(a) Name and address of the declarant;
(b) Name and address of the landlord and tenant; if any;
(c) Location of the building along with its municipal number;'
(d) Date on which it was occupied or let out;
(e) Whether such landlord or tenant or any member of his family owns any residential building in the same city, town or village and if so, details thereof;
(f) The person in occupation of the building referred to in Clause (c);"
2. On the plain language of the section the appellant cannot take benefit of the said provisions. It is obvious that on the date of occupation as well as on the date of declaration, the occupant must either be a landlord or the tenant. It is an admitted case that on the date of occupation, the appellant was neither the landlord nor the tenant. In this view of the matter, amended provisions of the Act are not applicable to the case of the appellant. We see no ground to interfere with the conclusions reached by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.