B NARSING RAO Vs. GOPAL GIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of a petition filed before the Rent Controller under Sec. 9 of the Rent Control Act by the present petitioner to permit him to deposit the rents payable for the premises In question Into Court. The 1st respondent is the original owner of the premises. The 2nd respondent is his son and the third respondent appears to be a purchaser of a portion of the premises. The leased premises is a garage used for a motor workshop in a vacant site. According to the petitioner he obtained lease of the whole premises at the same time from the 1st respondent, But according to the respondents, the petitioner obtained the lease of the garage in the first instance and subsequently the lease of the vacant site was granted. Therefore accordingly there are cwo leases, one is for the garage and the other is for the vacant site. The motor garage is on about 40 sq. yards and the open site is about 260 sq. yards. On the ground that the leases are separate for the garage and the vacant sice, the petition was resisted by the respondents that as che lease for the garage and the vacant site are different, so far as the vacant site is concerned, the Rent Control Act has no application and therefore the Rent Controller has no Jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It is also their case that even assuming that for both the garage and the vacant site the lease is only one even then as the garage is not appurtenant to a house or a part of Ic, ic is not a building as defined In Sec. 2 (III) of the Rent Control Act and in any view of the macter, the petition is noc maintainable.

(2.) According to the respondents the rent for the vacant site is Rs. 80/- and for the garage it is Rs. 20/- per month. But according to the petitioner the rent for the entire premises is Rs. 80/ and the 3rd respondent as purchaser of the vacant site only is claiming the entire amount of Rs. 80/-. Therefore with regard to the payment of that amount to respondents I to 3 the Rent Controller found that there is abonafide dispute about It. Tha Rent Controller also found that the lease is only one both for the garage and vacant site and both were taken on lease by the petitioner from respondent I at one and the same time and they were not taken separately at different times. The Rent Controller also came to the conclusion that the motor garage is a closed one with a tin roofing. Ic was let out for running a motor workshop. In other words, It was let out for using It as a motor mechanical workshop. The garage was constructed on an area of about 40 sq. Yards. It can safely be held to be a building in the circumstances of the case. Therfore it answers the definition of a building. Accordingly the Rent Controller allowed the petition filed by the tenant.

(3.) On appeal preferred by the respondentt, the appellate authority viz., the Chief Judge. City Small Causes Court. Hyderabad confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller that bath the garage and the vacant site are part of one lease transaction only. They were let out together by the 1st respondent to the petitioner. He also came to the conclusion that there is a bona fide dlpute with regard to the persons to whom the tent of Rs. 80/- as claimed by the petitioner is payable. However by coming to the conclusion that even though the garage end the vacant site are subject-matter of a single lease, still they cannot come under the definition of 'bullding' as defined under Sec. 2 (III) of the Act and therefore the Rent Control Act has no application to the lease and therefore the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Sec. 9 of the Act.