JUDGMENT

G. N. RAY, J.:—The question for our consideration in this appeal is whether the expression "Building" in Section 3(i) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act) means only the superstructure or it includes the land underneath it also.

2. It is not necessary to go into the history of litigation between the parties, suffice it to say that the building in dispute was let out to the Sales Tax Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh by one Devender Singh. His application under proviso to Section 21(8) of the Act for enhancement of rent was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and he enhanced the rent of the building from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 5,622.87 per month. The appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur was dismissed. The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the order of the courts below before the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was dismissed by the High Court by its Order dated February 7,1991. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High Court.

3. Section 3(i) and the p