SANKARA NABAYANA IYER Vs. RADHA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No error of jurisdiction. The lease in this case is admittedly of a building only and doss not comprise any land. Nor is there a claim that it creates a Kudikidappu. Having regard to the definitions of "eviction", "holding", "rent" and "tenant" in clauses (12), (17) (49) and (57) respectively of S.2 of Act T of 1964, I do not think that there can be an eviction, or a tenant, or a holding within the meaning of that Act & therefore, by reason of S.2 thereof, within the meaning of Act 9 of 1967, by reason of a lease unless the lease is a lease of land. And that Act I of 1964 does not use the word, "land" to include a building only is clear from S.3 thereof which treats lands and buildings as distinct and separate things. It is true that that section enacts an exemption in favour of leases only of buildings but that, it seems to me, is only by way of abundant caution and cannot mean that what is only a building is land within the meaning of the definitions referred to. The court below was therefore quite right in declining the petitioner the stay he sought under S.4 of Act 9 of 1967.