DALIP SINGH Vs. BHARWAN BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Regular Second Appeals (RSA No. 510 of 1982 and RSA No. 2298 of 1983) against concurrent findings of Courts below raise a substantial question of law of general importance, merely whether lease of atta chakki (flour mill) comprising running flour mill, electric motor and other accessories installed in a part of building situate within an urban area used and intended to be used as a flour mill is governed by the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE factual background leading to these appeals is simple short and identical. The predecessor in interest of respondents in RSA No. 510 of 1982, namely Chandi Ram was owner of a building No. B-I, Civil Lines, Ludhiana. He installed a flour mill in a part of the building, besides the milling machine, the flour mill included one electric motor of 20 H.P., starter, shafts et-cetera. He leased out the flour mill as well as the building in which it was running to the appellant under an oral agreement regarding which the appellant executed a rent note on 8.4.1975. The monthly rent which was a consolidated amount on account of the machinery as well as building was Rs. 375/-. The period of lease was three months. On the expiry of the said period, the lease was not renewed. The tenancy thus came to an end by the efflux of time. Thereafter, Chandi Ram did not accept any rent from the appellant. Chandi Ram filed a regular suit for possession in the civil Court at Ludhiana, alleging that dominant purpose of the lease was the flour mill and thus the tenancy was not covered under the provisions of the Act. Besides possession of the flour mill and the premises, Chandi Ram also claimed damages for use and occupation @ Rs. 375/- per month, Chandi Ram having died during the pendency of these proceedings, the present respondents were brought on record as his legal representatives.

(3.) IT is not disputed that both the buildings were situated in 'urban area' declared under the Act. The above referred suits were contested by the appellants. In the written statements filed in the two suits, the facts were not disputed, but it was denied that dominant purpose of the lease was letting of the flour mill. It was pleaded that the lease was in respect of a building for business purposes. It was further pleaded that the lease in question was covered by the Act and jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred.