LAWS(APH)-1970-10-16

MOHAMMED JAFFER ALI Vs. S RAJESWARA RAO

Decided On October 02, 1970
MOHAMMED JAFFER ALI Appellant
V/S
S.RAJESWARA RAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a question of considerable importance. The contention raised by Sri Jaleel Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the lease in question, which is of a cinema house called 'Jagat Talkies' inclusive of machinery in good working order, furniture, hotel, Pan shop, Cycle stand and entire area under the theatre is a 'Building' und that the appellant is a 'tenant' within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, & Rent Control) Act XV of 1960 (hereinafter called the Act). Section 2 (iii) of the Act define the word 'building' as follows: - 'building' means any bouse or hut or part of a house or hut, let or to be let separately 'or residential or non-residential purposes and includes :- (a) the gardens, grounds, garages and out houses, if any, apurtenant to such bouse, hut or part of such house or hut and let or to be let along with such house or part of such house or hut; (b) any furniture supplied or any fittings affixed by the land-lord for use in such house or hut or part of a house or but, but does not include a room in a hotel or boarding house;

(2.) It may be noted that the definition of the word 'building' in the Madras Acts of 1946 and 1949 and the Act are identical except for the fact that in section 2 (Hi) (b) after the words, 'furniture supplied' and before the words,"by the land lord'.the words,"or any fittings affixed", have been added in the Act. The cases relating to leases of cinema theatres have come up before the High Courts of Madras as well as Andhra Pradesh not to speak of the other High Courts, But the view taken is not uniform,

(3.) In Raja chetty V. Jagannath Das (I) Rajamannar, CJ. and Krishna Swamy Naidu, J. In Amrit Lal N. Shah Vs. Krishna Rao (unreported decision dt. 13-8-1954 (short notes Andhra) in A. S. Nos. 323 & 743 of 1949. Chandra Reddy and Umamaheswaram JJ., and in A, N. Shah Vs. Annapurnamma, Umamaheswaram and Krishna Rao, J L, took the view that the subject matter of the lease was not a 'building' within the meaning of the Madras Act 1946 as the case may be.