RAM PRAKASH CHAWLA Vs. AMRIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of the Civil Procedure is whether the property in dispute is permises within the meaning of the Delhi Rent Control Act .This question has arisen in the following circumstances. The plaintiff-respondent let out a plot of land bearing Municipal No. 355 measuring 200 sq. yards' situated at Prem Gali Gandhi Nagar, Delhi to the defendant/appellant at a monthly rent of Rs. 45.00 with effect from 1st December, 1965 in terms of a rent note dated 19th November, 1965. The tenancy was for a period of eleven months. The appellant occupied the said plot for keeping his animals and using the same as dairy. The respondent permitted him to construct 10 or 11 feet high boundary wall with two doors, verandah and a tin shed. The appellant was also permitted to consruct a Khoka or a hut instead of tin shed.K He was to receive only Rs. 800.00 on account of the cost of raising the structure from the respondent, which was to be deducted from the rent. He was not liable to pay rent till the adjustment of Rs. 800.00 If the appellant had vacated the plot and any amount remained due to him out of Rs. 800.00 the respondent was liable to pay the same to the applan. The parties however, agreed not to increase the rent even after the construction of the structure.

(2.) The appellant after occupying the plot is alleged to have constructed a boundary wall besides other structure. It is admitted that the entire structure was raised by the appellant and not by the respondent. The respondent terminated the tenancy and filed the present Suit for possession and recovery of arrears of rent. The suit for possession was decreed by the trial court which was confirmed by the first appellate court. In this second appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the property let out to the appellant is 'premises' within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') which reads as under:

(3.) His contention is that after construction of the structure as agreed by the respondent the plot of land and the structure became 'premises' under his tenancy and that the agreed monthly rent of Rs. 45.00 included the rent fore the structure. A bare reading of the rent note admittedly executed by the appellant shows that the rent of Rs. 45.00 was for plot only and not for the structure which was to be raised by the appellant. As a matter of fact there is no clause in the agreement for payment of rent for the structure raised by the appellant. The short question is whether the property which was initially let to the appellant was the premises within the meaning of the Delhi Rent Control Act. For the purpose of determining as to whether the property was premises, one has to find what was the nature of the property at the time of letting. It is an admitted case of the parties that when the property was letout, it was an open piece of land. There was no structure of any nature whatsoever. The respondent had only allowed the appellant to construct the boundary wall besides other structure with a view to enable the appellant to keep animals on the plot and use the same as a dairy. What was let the appellant was not a building or part of any building but a plot of land only. The word 'premises' within the meaning of the Delhi Rent Control Act means any building or part of a building which is, or is intended to be, let separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose. As there was no building at the time of letting, it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the respondent to let any building the appellant. The various terms of the 'rent note' also do not show that there was any agreement to let the structure that might be built by the appellant himself.