Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paragraphs 15 and 16 of the decision in Sana Ullah v. VIII Additional District Judge. Meerut and Ors. 1979 ARC 138. After noticing the definition of 'building' as defined in Section 3(i) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in para 15 of the decision the Court in para 16 observed that since in the definition of building expression 'means' has been used it indicates that the definition is exhaustive, that is to say, it is not possible to read in it some thing which has not been provided expressly therein. The Court thereafter held that the definition clearly shows that in order to fall within it, there must be a roofed structure. If there is no roofed structure, the premises cannot be a building. Apart from the meaning given in the Act, what is a 'building' must be a block of brick or stone work covered in by a roof. The roof need not be laid with lintel or other similar constructions. The ordinary and natural meaning of the word 'building' includes the fabric and the ground on which it stands. It is a structure roofed in and capable of upholding protection and shelter. Therefore, a roofless "Ahata" which merely surrounds a piece of land, though stayed and tied together is not a building within the definition given above.

10. In the aforesaid case the question being considered by the Court was whether a roofless structure or "Ahata" could be called a building. The facts of the instant case are different. It is admitted to the parties that the balcony above roofed structure has been given the shape of a room and is utilized as such by supporting grills from below.

11. In fact the aforesaid ruling in Sana Ullah (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is clearly against him as it is apparent that in the ordinary and natural meaning of the word 'building' includes even other fabrics than bricks for the purpose of walls like tins, grills, thatched walls, kachcha walls, glass walls, fiber walls etc.

14. Thus, the aforesaid case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the instant case and is clearly distinguishable.

15. In the case of Salig Ram (supra) also the definition of 'building' as defined in Section 3(i) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) was given a meaning. The Court held that the building under Section 3(i) means a roofed structure which means a roof placed upon some sort of walls which may be either pucca or kachcha or wooden or of tin or of any other material. In that case there was no finding that the tin shed was placed upon any walls of any sort, hence, it was held that the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not applicable. It is apparent that this case cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is of no help to him in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(i) any land (including any garden), garages and outhouses, appurtenant to such building ;

(ii) and furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building ;

(iii) any fittings and fixtures affixed to such building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof;

Being an inclusive definition nothing can be added in it, hence it means a residential or non-residential structure having a roof.

17. Admittedly in the present case the balcony has been utilized as a roofed structure bounded by iron grills from below for the shop/working space for welding etc.