Chandiramani, J. - (1.) This is a deft's second appeal against the appellate decree of Sri Grish Chandra, 1st Civil Judge, Kheri, dated 27-5-1950.
(2.) It appears that the plff. let out on rent to the deft. appellant a certain ahata within the municipal limits of the town of Lakhimpur-Kheri. After some time the plff. served on the deft. a valid notice to quit the premises & when he failed to do so, a suit for ejectment & damages was filed. An objection was taken that because the premises were situate within municipal limits, the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1947, applied & that as the plff. wanted the house for his own residential purposes, the previous permission of the District Magistrate was necessary before the suit could be filed. The plff. denied that the premises let out were accommodation within the meaning of the Act.
(3.) The trial Court held that the premises constituted accommodation within the meaning of the Act & as no previous permission of the District Magistrate had been taken, the suit was not maintainable. It was accordingly dismissed. On appeal the learned lower appellate Court has held that what was let out to the deft. was merely an ahata. His finding was: "The evidence placed on the record would show that the ahata in question has pucca boundary walls with one main gate which has doors & shutters for it. The tin shed & the thatch shed inside the ahata are temporary constructions put in the ahata by the deft. resp. without the leave & consent of the plff. appellant. The existence of the tin shed & the thatch shed inside the enclosure walls of the ahata could not make the ahata in question a building as contemplated by Section 2 (a) of Act III [3] of 1947." The learned Civil Judge held that ahata itself cannot be considered to be a building within the meaning of the Act. The result was that as the notice for ejectment had been held to be valid, the plff's. suit was decreed.;