V.D. Bhargava, J. - (1.) THIS is a Defendants' appeal arising out of suit for ejectment, removal of the constructions and for damages. The defence was that the notice given to them was bad, that they were protected by Act III of 1947, the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act and there were other pleas also. Both the courts have come to the findings of fact that the Plaintiffs were the owners, the Defendants were tenants for ten years, that the notice was a valid notice and since the lease was of an open land the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act would not apply. So far as the first three findings are concerned they are findings of fact and binding upon me.
(2.) IT is clear that the premises cannot come under the definition of accommodation, if it is an open land. 'Accommodation' has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Act as follows: Accommodation" means residential and non -residential accommodation in any building or a part of building and includes...
(3.) ADMITTEDLY here the property which was leased out was an open plot of land and there was no building on it. The Defendants own case was that after taking that plot of land, the building was constructed and when it was let out to them it was not a building but a plot of land. In the circumstances, Control of Rent and Eviction Act will not apply to the present case. The suit has properly been decreed. There is no other point involved in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs but the Appellant is given four months' time to vacate the disputed property from today.;