RAMESHWAR PRASAD Vs. ANAND BEHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the defendant. A suit for ejectment of the defendant was filed after service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The premises in respect of which the suit was filed was a Dal Mill. One of the defences raised was that the Judge Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit inasmuch as the lease was not of a building but a composite one viz. of the roofed structure of the non-residential structure and also the machinery installed there. The trial Court did not agree with this contention, and held that in view of the amendment to item 4 of the second Schedule to the Small Causes Court Act the suit was properly instituted. Item 4 of second schedule of the Small Causes Court Act excluded suit for possession of immovable property for recovery of an interest in such pro perty from the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court Act (sic) provision by Section 4 of U. P. Act No. 37 of 1972 as a result of this amendment item 4 read as under: "a suit for the possession of immovable property or for the recovery of an interest in such property, but not including a suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease, and for the recovery from him of compensation for the use and occupation of that building after such determination of lease. " As a result of this amendment suits by a lessor for eviction of a lessee from a building could be tried by the Small Causes Court. In the present case the property from which the ejectment of tile defendant is sought comprises not only the roofed structure but also the machinery and the plant installed in the building, which had also been leases out to the defendant by the plaintiff. The lease is, thus, one which is for the machinery and plant of the Dal Mill and also the premises in which they are affixed. Thus, the lease is not one only for non-residential roofed structure, in such a situation the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Uttamchand v. S. M. Lalwani (A. I. R. 1965 S. C. 716), applies. In that case as in the present case the lease was of a Dal Mill, i. e. of the roofed structure and also the machinery which formed part of the Dal Mill. The question arose as to whether the lease was of an accommodation as described in Section 3 (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (23 of 1865 ). The word "accommodation" had been denned in that Act as including a building or a part of a building and also including gardens, open land, furniture and fittings affixed to such buildings for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof. It was held that the lease of the machinery was not for the mere beneficial enjoy ment of the roofed structure, and as the dominant intention of the lease was not that leasing out the roofed structure alone but the mill as a whole the provisions of the Rent Act did not apply to such an accommodation. In the present case a -similar position obtains. This being so, the Judge Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The revision succeeds, and is allowed with costs. .