Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
KOTI SARROJ ANAMMA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
JONNALAGADA MALLESWARA RAO
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/03/1995
BENCH:
MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)
BENCH:
MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)
AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
1995 AIR 1401 1995 SCC (3) 347
JT 1995 (3) 329 1995 SCALE (2)445
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
1.The appellants. had filed a suit being G.S.No.159/83
before the Additional Munsiff, Guntur to evict the
respondent from their property consisting of vacant site,
zinc sheet shed and Saw mill machinery which had been leased
in the year 1967 to the respondent under an oral lease. The
property is situated in Guntur Town, Nagarmelem Old Ward No.
17, New ward No. 23, Block No. 14, TS No.411. The respondent
contended, inter alia, that the Civil Court had no
Jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit-, the Rent
Controller alone had jurisdiction in the matter under, the
provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings(Lease, Rent and
Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The respondent also contended
that there was no valid quit notice, that he was entitled to
continue in the suit premises till April, 1986 and that the
appellants did not require the premises for their personal
use as was contended by them. The Additional Munsiff,
Guntur decreed the suit of the appellants. He held that the
tenancy was from month to month and the quit notice was
valid. He also held that the lease in question was in
relation to land and machinery. The zinc sheet shed being
only an accessory to the main lease hold premises, being
meant for covering the machinery, the lease in question did
not come within the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings
(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
2.Being aggrieved by this judgments and order, the
respondent preferred an appeal before the District Court at
Guntur. The District Judge, however, confirmed the findings
of the Munsiff’s Court and dismissed the appeal.
3.The respondent preferred a second appeal before the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the concurrent findings
of the two courts below. The High Court came to the
conclusion that the lease was in respect of a building as
defined in the Andhra Pradesh(Lease, Rent and Eviction)
Control Act, 1960 and hence the Civil Court had no
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On this ground, the
appeal of the respondent was allowed by the High Court. The
present appeal is from this judgment and order of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh.
4.The narrow question before us is whether the lease in
question is of a building as defined in the Andhra Pradesh
Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1961
Section 2 (iii) of the said Act defines a building thus:
"2 (iii): ’building, means any house or hut or
part of a house or hut, let or to be let
separately for residential or non-residential
purpose and includes-
(a) the gardens, grounds, garages and out-
houses, if any, appurtenant to such house, hut
or part of such house or hut and let or to be
let along with such house or hut or part of
such house or hut;
(b) any furniture supplied or any fittings
affixed by the landlord for use in such house
or hut or part of a house or hut, but does not
include a room in a hotel or boarding house;"
5. It is contended by the respondent that the zinc sheet
shed which covers the machinery was leased out to him by the
appellants. The shed falls within the defini-
331
tion of building under Section 2 (iii). This contention
requires examination.
6.There is no written lease in the present case. The case
of the appellants throughout has been that what was leased
out to the respondent was their Saw mill machinery and land
consisting of approximately 10,000 square yards. The Saw
mill machinery was covered by a zinc sheet shed to protect
the machinery. The lease was essentially a lease of the Saw
mill machinery. It was not a lease of a house or a hut. In
the plaint in paragraph 111, the property which has been
leased out is described thus:
"the property mentioned in the schedule
annexed consists of vacant site, zinc sheet
shed and machinery belonging to the first
plaintiff herein.............
The schedule to the plaint describes the property as:
"Guntur town, Nagaramelem old ward No. 17,
ward No.23, Block No. 14, TS No.411, total
area 10156 square feet municipal assessment
No. 22214 bounded by-
West : Compound Wall in this site; and Rakulu
of ILTD Co., 105’.08’
South : Road and gate and compound wall 70’
West : Compound Wall in this Rakulu of ILTD
Co., 106’
North : Compound Wall and Rakulu zinc sheet
shed 60’ - 06"
within the above boundaries wherein there zinc
doria rakulu shed, with saw mill with all
accessories attached to the mill, 10 Hp
Electric motor, current connection metre
etc.,"
7. The case of the appellants throughout has, therefore,
been that the land together with Saw mill and accessories
attached to the Saw mill covered by zinc doria rakulu shed
was leased out to the respondent. The trial court came to
the conclusion that it was the Saw mill with machinery
covered with zinc sheet which was taken on lease by the
respondent in 1967. It came to the conclusion that the mere
fact the machinery of the Saw mill was housed in a zinc
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
sheet shed will not make the lease that of a non
-residential building within the meaning of Section 2 of the
said Act. The same view has bean upheld by the Appellate
Court. The appellate Court has also observed that there is
no dispute with regard to the description of the property
leased out as made out in the plaint and the schedule to it,
It has also held that the respondent had taken the Saw mill
machinery and the schedule property on lease for doing Saw
mill business.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants also produced before
us the deposition of witnesses examined between the trial
court. The second plaintiff in his examination - in chief
has said that the property leased out is a vacant site along
with Saw mill shed. In his cross-examination he has
reiterated that only the machines and shed were leased out.
The defendant had constructed an office in the premises
later on. The defendant in his examination -in- chief has
also deposed that he took the schedule site on lease in 1967
for doing timber business. He has said that when he took
the premises on lease, there was a saw mill machine and
shed. He has further stated that he constructed an office
room in the, premises after he took the premises on
332
lease. In his cross examination, the defendant had stated
that die shed is erected to house the machinery.
9. Looking to this evidence, it is clear that the shed,
which has a zinc sheet roof, was erected only to protect the
Saw mill machinery. What was leased out to the respondent
was substantially the Saw mill machinery for the purpose of
carrying on timber/ Saw mill business. The shed was merely
erected to shelter the machinery. The dominant purpose of
the lease was to lease out the Saw mill machinery. In order
that the lease should be covered by the Andhra Pradesh
Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the
lease should be of a building as defined in Section 2 (iii).
It should, therefore, be lease of any house or a hut or a
part of a house or a hut let for residential or
nonresidential purposes. It would include gardens, grounds,
garages and out-houses appurtenant to such a house or a hut.
In the present case, however, the lease is not of any house
or a hut or part of a house or a hut. The lease is of saw
mill machinery which is covered by a zinc sheet shed. The
dominant purpose of die lease is to lease (mat the
machinery. The shed is only an adjunct It is also pointed
out that a covering over the machinery in the shape of a
structure consisting of zinc shows supported on poles can
hardly be called a house or even a hut In any case, looking
to the dominant purpose of the lease, the two courts below
have rightly come to the conclusion that the lease is not
covered by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings
(Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960.
10. The respondent relied upon a decision of a Full Bench
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Mohammad
Jaffar Ali v. S. Rajeswara Rao (1971) 1 Andhra Pradesh
Weekly Reports 194). In that case, there was a lease of die
cinema theatre. The Court held that the lease was
essentially a demise of the building with accessories like
furniture and machinery, the dominant purpose of the demise
was to lease the cinema theatre building and hence, the
provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and
Eviction) Control Act, 1960 apply to such a lease. In the
present case, the dominant purpose is clearly to lease out
the Saw mill machinery. A zinc sheet shed which has been
erected merely to cover the machinery, cannot be a pre-
dominant reason for the lease. The High Court, therefore,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
was not right in coming to the conclusion that the lease was
governed by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings
(Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
11.The appeal is therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment
and order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 20.2.1992
is set aside and the judgment and the order dated 2.4.1990
of the third Additional District Judge, Guntur is confirmed.
The respondent shall pay to the appellants costs of the
appeal.
334