THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.3719 OF 2010 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondents are the landlords. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 10.08.2010 passed by the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.35/2010 in R.C.C.No.13/2010, in dismissing the petition filed under Section 14(3)&(4) Explanation of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’), the present revision is filed. 3. The respondents/landlords filed R.C.C.No.13/2010 seeking eviction of the tenant, who is the revision petition. Pending the R.C.C., the tenant filed the present I.A. seeking permission to replace the wooden roof with poles, which is the annexed to the petition schedule shop room. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he is the tenant of the RC schedule shop room and took the same about 22 years back from the 2nd respondent. His further case is that since the date of lease, he has been running tea stall in front of RC shop by putting asbestos roof with wooden poles and into the road margin and that he has been paying encroachment fee to the Municipality. When the said wooden poles were damaged, on 19.6.2010, he removed the same, for the purpose of replacing the same with new poles and during the said process, the landlords objected. His case is that the said asbestos roof attached to the shop is an ‘amenity’ and hence the landlords shall be directed to permit him to erect the asbestos roof with poles in the place of old one. 5. The landlords/respondents filed counter affidavit and their case is that the petitioner has taken the shop for running cool drinks shop on 1.12.1990 and that the lease expired long back and that the petitioner had subleased the shop room to his relative who is running a tea stall. Their further case is that the petitioner is a defaulter and the lease agreement was already over and hence he is not entitled to erect the asbestos roof with wooden poles. 6. By the impugned order, the court below holding that as the tenant himself erected the asbestos sheeted roof to the schedule shop room and as the same was not provided by the landlord, it cannot be termed as an ‘amenity’ provided by the landlord and hence no relief under Section 14(3) or (4) of the Act can be granted. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the I.A. Hence the present revision. 7. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the tenant over the schedule shop room and that he has taken the shop for running cool drinks business. The case of the petitioner is that since the date of lease, he has been running tea stall in front of the schedule shop room by putting asbestos roof with wooden poles. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner has sub leased the shop to his relative and that he is running tea stall. Therefore, there is no much dispute with regard to existence of asbestos sheeted roof with wooden poles attached to the schedule shop and running of tea stall business. The respondents – landlords sought for his eviction, inter alia, on the grounds the he is a defaulter and that the lease agreement expired long back. 8. From the above, as it is the tenant who has erected the asbestos roof with wooden poles to the tenanted premises, it cannot be said that it is an ‘amenity’ provided by the landlords. 9. The admitted fact on record is that the schedule shop was taken by the tenant for running cool drink business and his case is that he has erected asbestos roof with wooden poles in front of the tenanted premises and running tea stall business. Therefore, it has to be examined whether the asbestos roof with wooden poles attached to the tenanted shop is a ‘building’ as defined under Section 2(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. In similar circumstances, a learned single Judge of this court while considering the issue whether wooden bunk attached to the shop mulgi would come under the definition of ‘building’ as defined under Section 2(iii) of the Act, held as under: “15. Turning to the instant case the premises in question is a wooden bunk attached to the shop mulgi. The permanent nature of the structure can therefore be seen, since it is attached to the shop mulgi. Obviously it was let out for the purpose of carrying business therein i.e., for non-residential purpose. The description of the property and the purpose for which it was let out would go in favour of the conclusion that it is nothing but a building as defined under Section 2(iii) of the Act. That view is further re-enforced by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court. Therefore, the premises in question comes clearly within the definition of building as given in the Act.” 10. From the above it is clear that the wooden bunk attached to a shop mulgi, is a ‘building’ as defined under Section 2(iii) of the Act, having regard to the permanent nature of the structure. 11. In the present case, there is no dispute that the tenant has erected an asbestos roof with wooden poles and as the poles are damaged, he is seeking to replace the damaged poles with new ones. Hence, pending the RCC, the respondents – landlords shall not have any objection for replacing the wooden poles with new ones. 12. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, I.A. filed by the petitioner – tenant is allowed and accordingly the impugned order is set aside. 13. The revision is accordingly allowed. No costs. LSK/AVS ------------------------------- 09—08—2011