A.Banerji, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendants tenants. The suit for eiectment filed by the plaintiff Rabu Ram was dismised by the trial court but has been decreed by the lower appellate court. The courts below differed on the cmestion as to what had been let out. While the trial court had held that what was let out was accommoda tion within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the lower appellate court held that what was let out was not an ac commodation within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the Act. The very same question has been raised in this appeal. It is not necessary in this apneal to refer to any Question of fact or the uleadings. They are sufficiently stated in the judgment of the court below.
(2.) THE principal question that arises for the consideration of this Court is as to what was let out, whether it was an accommodation within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the Act or a plot of land or something else. Both parties relied on the lease deed Ex. 7. It is dated August 30, 1952. The material portion of the lease deed which des cribes what was let out is contained in the following words: - "Vidit ho ke ek kita plot numbery 108 block scheme number 1 waikai Juhi Darshan Purwa shahr Kanpur Jiski cahardiwari khinchi hui hai aur usme pipe wa phatak laga hua hai wa beech me juj khaprail para hua hai." In para 1 of the lease deed it is stated that the above plot includ ing the Cahardiwari (boundary wall), the Khaprail and the gate were being let out for a period of three years at Rs. 100.00 per month. The describing the boundaries of the plot was described in the same manner as has been stated above. From the description of the plot as given in the opening part and in the concluding part of the lease deed it was urged what was let out was not an open piece of land but an enclosed piece of land which contained water pipe and gate but also a roofed structure, and since there was a roofed structure it would mean that what was let out was an accommodation and not merely an open plot of land.
(3.) THE word 'accommodation' has been defined in Section 2 (a) of the Act in the following words: - "Definitions- In this Act: - (a) 'accommodation' means residential and non-residential ac commodation in any building or part of a building and includes, (i) gardens, grounds and out houses, if any, appurtenant to such building or part of a building; (ii) any furniture suonlied by the landlord for use in such build ings or part of a building; (in) any fitting affixed to such building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof. But does not include any accommodation used as a factory or for an industrial purpose where the business carried on in or upon the building is also leased out to the licensee by the same transaction." ;