Case: Ghanshiam Das Vs. Devi Prasad &amp; Another

2. The respondents are the owners of a brick kiln located on the two plots Nos. 596 and 597 in Mauza Sarwat, Pargana and District Muzaffarnagar. They leased out the brick kiln to the appellant under a registered lease deed, dated December 29, 1950. The lease was to take effect from January 1, 1951 and terminate on September 30, 1953. The rent was fixed at Rs. 41 per mensem payable annually in the month of October. The rent for the period October 1, 1952 to September 30, 1953 remained due against the appellant. The respondents filed a suit (No. 1125 of 1953) in the Court of Munsif Muzaffarnagar for the recovery of Rs. 492 being arrears of rent from October 1, 1952 to September 30, 1953. The suit was contested by the appellant who pleaded that after the passing of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (U. P. Act 1 of 1951)-hereinafter called the Act-the plots of land had vested in the State of U. P. under S. 6 of the Act with effect from July 1, 1952 and the respondents were, therefore, not entitled to claim any rent from the appellant. By his judgment, dated February 12, 1955 the Additional Munsif, Muzaffarnagar, held that the brick kiln did not vest in the State and as it occupied only 1/3rd of the total area of the land, the respondents were entitled to a decree for 1/3rd of the rent claimed. The Munsif accordingly granted a decree for a sum of Rs. 164 and dismissed the balance of the claim of the respondents. Against the judgment of the Additional Munsif both the parities filed appeals before the District Judge. Both the appeals were disposed of by the Civil Judge of Muzaffarnagar by a common judgment, dated August 19, 1957. It was held by the Additional Civil Judge that the brick kiln could not be regarded as a "building" within the meaning of S. 9 of the Act and the entire area of the two plots Nos. 596 and 597 had vested in the State. The Additional Civil Judge accordingly allowed the appellants appeal and dismissed the appeal of the respondents. The net result was that the suit of the respondents for arrears of rent was dismissed as a whole. Against the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge the respondents filed two Second Appeals Nos. 2510 and 2511 of 1957 to the High Court. The High Court held that the brick kiln was a "building" within the meaning of S. 9 of the Act and the title to the two plots of land did not vest in the State and the respondents acquired the rights of statutory tenants under S. 9 of the Act and they had a right to demand rent from the appellant under the terms of the lease. The High Court accordingly allowed both the Second Appeals and granted a decree to the respondents for the entire amount of rent claimed.

Reasoning:
4. The word "building" has not been defined in the Act and must, therefore, be constructed in its ordinary grammatical sense unless there is something in the context or object of the statute to show that it is used in a special sense different from its ordinary grammaticalthis definition it does not appear that the existence of a roof is always necessary for a structure to be regarded as a building. Residential buildings ordinarily have roofs but there can be a non-residential building for which a roof is not necessary. A large stadium or an open-air swimming pool constructed at a considerable expense would be a building as it is a permanent structure and designed for a useful purpose. The question as to what is a "building" under S. 9 of the Act must always be a question of degree-a question depending on the facts and circumstance of eachhas been found by the first appellate Court that the brick kiln has no site and is not a roofed structure. It was a mere pit with some bricks by its sides. It is also admitted in this case that there was no structure standing on the Bhatta. Upon these facts, it is clear that the brick kiln has no walls and no roof but it is a mere pit dug in the ground with bricks by its side. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the brick kiln leased out to the appellant, in the present case, is not a "building" within the meaning of S. 9 of the Act. It follows, therefore, that the title to both the plots Nos. 596 and 597 along with the brick kiln vested in the State Government with effect from July 1, 1952 and the respondents are not entitled to claim any rent from the appellant for the period from October 1, 1952 to September 30, 1953.