JUDGMENT

RANGANATHAN, J.:— The appellant a co-operative society (hereinafter referred to as the Society), resists a suit for possession laid by the respondent, contending that the property in question is a building within the meaning of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act), the eviction of a tenant from which can be sought by the landlord only from a rent controller on grounds specified in the Act and not by a suit in a Civil Court under the Transfer of Property Act read with the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). This contention of the appellant has been rejected. concurrently, by the Assistant District Judge, the Additional District Judge and the High Court. In this appeal, counsel for the appellant seeks to persuade us that all the three Courts have decided erroneously a substantial question of law raised by it and that they ought to have dismissed the suit instead of decreeing it. To get a cogent idea of the history of the litigation concerning this property and to properly appreciate the contentions urged, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts at some length.

2. (a) The property in question originally belonged to one Khan Din Hussain Din but it came to be vested in