RAM KUMAR Vs. BABU RAM GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendants tenants. The suit for eiectment filed by the plaintiff Rabu Ram was dismised by the trial court but has been decreed by the lower appellate court. The courts below differed on the cmestion as to what had been let out. While the trial court had held that what was let out was accommoda tion within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the lower appellate court held that what was let out was not an ac commodation within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the Act. The very same question has been raised in this appeal. It is not necessary in this apneal to refer to any Question of fact or the uleadings. They are sufficiently stated in the judgment of the court below.

(2.) THE principal question that arises for the consideration of this Court is as to what was let out, whether it was an accommodation within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the Act or a plot of land or something else. Both parties relied on the lease deed Ex. 7. It is dated August 30, 1952. The material portion of the lease deed which des cribes what was let out is contained in the following words: -

(3.) THE word 'accommodation' has been defined in Section 2 (a) of the Act in the following words: -