HARISH CHANDRA Vs. MOHAMMAD ISMAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from. the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 1482 of 1981, summarily dismissing the said second appeal.

(2.) The appellants before us are the tenants or lessees and the respondents, the landlords in respect of certain shop premises. The said shop was conducted under a tin shade resting on a wall of the respondents building. The land under the shade belonged to the respondents.

(3.) The suit for eviction was filed in the court of the learned Munsit Hawaii, Rarriljibad and not before the Prescribed Authority as provided under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the U. P. Rent Act"). It is common ground that if the premises leased constitute a "building" within the meaning of that word as defined under clause (i) of S. 3 of the U. P. Rent Act, then the suit ought to have been instituted before the Prescribed Authority who was the competent court to decide disputes between a landlord and tenant as provided in the U. P. Rent Act. The trial court, namely, the court of the learned Munsif held that the said premises in which the shop was conducted constituted a building within the meaning of the U. P. Rent Act and it passed an order rejecting the plaint. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge pointed out that the shop was being conducted under a tin shade supported by wooden pillars and, following the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High court in Narayan Chand Dass v. Panna Lal came to theconclusion that the said construction in which the shop was being conducted could not be said to be a building under the U. P. Rent Act, and hence, the court of the learned Munsif had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the case. There was one other issue which arose in that case and that was whether the tin shade in question had been constructed by the. appellants/tenants or the respondents/landlords. The Additional District Judge did not enter upon the consideration of this question at all in view of his conclusion that the tin shade was not a building within the meaning of that expression under S. 3 (1 of the U. P. Rent Act. He further held that in view of the other findings given by the learned Munsif, the appeal should be allowed and decree for eviction be passed. Accordingly, he passed a decree for eviction against the appellants. In the second appeal, the High court held that there was no ground for interference and dismissed the same.