MOWASI RAM Vs. SHEIKH KANNOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's second appeal from the decree of Addl. Civil Judge, Mathura confirming a decree of Addl. Munsif Mathura for his ejectment from a plot of land. The Defendant Appellant Mawasi Ram was the tenant of a piece of land of which Sheikh Kannoo is the landlord. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 3/ - p.m. but fell in arrears, whereupon the Plaintiff terminated the tenancy by a notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and asking the Defendant to vacate the land; that the Defendant continued to occupy the land in spite of notice; hence the suit. The Defendant contended that the suit was incompetent as it had been filed without the permission of the D.M. Both the courts below held that the plot of land was not an accommodation within the meaning of Section 2 of the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act and therefore the permission of the D.M. was not necessary. The trial court decreed the suit and the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal of the Defendant who has come to this Court in second appeal.

(2.) MR . S.C. Asthana learned Counsel for the Appellant urged only one point before me. He contended that the view of the courts below that a plot of land enclosed by a wall is not a building and therefore not an accommodation within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act is erroneous. Learned Counsel relied on a decision of Mithan Lal, J. "in Mahesh Chandra v. UP State (1) (1963 AWR 323) in which it was held that a gher must be deemed to be a building Under Section 9 of the UP ZA and LR Act. He also cited my own decision in Devi Prasad v. Ghanshyam Das (2) (1961 AWR 213) in which I observed that the existence of a roof is not absolutely essential for a structure to be regarded as a building and that any edifice or structure of a permanent nature which is constructed for any useful purpose would be a building, and therefore a Bhatta or a brick kiln is ordinarily a building within the meaning of Section 9 of the ZA and LR Act. On the other hand the counsel for the Respondent relied on a decision of Chandiramani, J. in Chanda Lal v. Ram Kishan (3) ( : AIR 1952 All. 607) in which it was held that the word building in Section 2(a) of the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act cannotes a roofed structure and a plot of land which is not appurtenant to any roofed building but merely enclosed by a wall is not to be regarded as a building.

(3.) THAT Act was passed for the purpose of controlling the letting and the rents of residential and non -residential accommodation and to prevent the eviction of tenants therefrom. The preamble states that due to the shortage of accommodation in the State it was expedient to provide for powers to control the letting and the rent of such accommodation and to prevent the eviction of tenants. The Act was made applicable "to every municipality and notified areas established under the UP Municipalities Act and to areas situated within two miles of such Municipalities or Notified Area". These provisions make it clear that the Act was passed to deal with the problem of shortage of accommodation in urban localities. It has no application to rural areas. A Municipality or a town area does not ordinarily include agricultural plots of land.