Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

But taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the finding recorded by the trial court on issue no. 1 cannot be set aside in view of the restricted jurisdiction of this Court while exercising power under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act.

Now, the second point relating to the question as to whether the property in question is "a building" within the meaning of Section 3(i) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 or not is taken up. It may be noted that U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 referred as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is an Act to provide in the interest of general public, for the regulation of letting and rent of, and the eviction of tenants from, certain classes of buildings situated in urban areas, and for matters connected therewith. The provisions of the said Act are applicable to certain classes of building. In other words, if the property in dispute is not a building, evidently it will not be governed by the said Act. The word "building" has been defined under Section 3(i) of the Act which means a residential or non-residential roofed structure and includes---

(i)any land (including any garden), garages and out-houses appurtenant to such building ;
(ii)any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building;
(iii)any fitting and fixtures affixed to such building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof;

The roofed structure is essential to term a construction as a building within the meaning of the aforesaid definition of building. The facts of the case in hand are not much in dispute. A bare perusal of the plaint would show that what was let out to the defendant has been described as gher facing north consisting of one Kothari covered by tin shed, having three trees and water supply connection. In para-4A of the plaint, the dimensions of the gher (subject matter of the letting) has been mentioned as 52 feet x 42 feet, wherein a temporary kothari having dimensions around 8 feet x 8 feet exists. It has been further pleaded that there is no other roofed structure and the said kothari in the gher is appurtenant to the vacant land. The said gher was let out for the purposes of repairing the tractors and the tractors could be repaired on a vacant piece of land. The kothari is situate at north-western corner of land. It was pleaded that the accommodation in question is not a building.

In Nanhe Ghosi v. Firozul Hassan Khan and others, 1978 ALJ, 1290, again a case under the old Act, this Court with regard to definition of "accommodation" as defined under the old Act has held that before protection of the provisions of U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947 or thereafter of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 can be claimed by a tenant having regard to definition of the word "accommodation" or "building", it must be established that the land is appurtenant to any building or part of a building or residential or non-residential roofed structure. The observations made in para-10 of the report that mere presence of a building or a roofed structure on the plot of land would not enable the tenant to claim protection of the provisions of these Acts to some extent are helpful to the landlord herein.

As against above, learned counsel for the opposite party referred Ram Dularey v. D.D. Jain and others, 1965 ALR 722, a case under the old Act with reference to the question as to whether jhopari with thatched roof is accommodation or not. Jhopari has been held to be a building. The said decision is distinguishable on fact as the question involved herein i.e. letting of a vacant piece of land having small roofed structure is not there. Obviously, if the roofed structure has been let out, it will be an accommodation. The said case is not much assistance to the defendant opposite party. Similarly Om Prakash v. the III Additional District Judge, Meerut and other, 1981 ARC 278, is also distinguishable on fact as it was with respect to a temporary wooden "Khoka" kept on the land in suit. It was held that the building may also include within its scope any structure which may not be a permanent structure. This case is also not of much help and is distinguishable on facts. For the same reason, Anwar Ahmad v. IVth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and others, ARC 1981 P. 654, is also distinguishable. Lastly, reference was made to the Apex Court Judgment in Harish Chandra and another vs. Mohd. Ismail and others, ARC 1990(2) 357, in this case a piece of ground over which there is a tin shed was let out. The Apex Court has remanded the matter to find out whether the said construction was put up by the landlord or tenant first. There is no discussion on the issue presently involved in the case on hand and is therefore, not of much assistance.