NARAYAN CHAND DASS Vs. PANNA LAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent.

(2.) On 19th Dec., 1946, Nand Kishore Lal, plaintiff no. 1's father, demised an open piece of land bearing municipal number B-20/86, Mohalla Bhelupura, Varanasi, to the defendant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/- for a period of 15 years beginning from 1st Jan., 1947. On the expiry of the lease, the pilantiffs wanted possession and consequently instituted the present suit. One of the pleas taken in defence was that the suit was barred by the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act because the subjec-matter of the tenancy was an accommodation. The lower appellate court has decreed the suit. It found inter alia that the subject-matter of the tenancy in the present case was not an accommodation within the meaning of the Rent Control and Eviction Act and consequently that Act was not attracted. This finding has been challenged in the present second appeal.

(3.) On facts it has been found that an open piece of land was let out to the defendant. The document of lease permitted the defendant to build tin-shed etc on the land for the protection of the articles of business of the defendant. It was also provided that the defendant would be entitled to take away the material of the constructions at the time when he left the land. The trial court found that in pursuance of this permission the defendant made some tin-shed etc on the land in dispute. The Question is, would the land become an accommodation within meaning of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act because of.the construction of the tin-shed by the defendant-tenant. Under the definition of an "accommodation" an open piece of land is not, but land with a building is an accommodation.