JUDGMENT

Mrs. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.:—The appellants had filed a suit being O.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 judgment and order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the District Court at Guntur. The District Judge, however, confirmed the findings of the Munsiffs 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 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, 1960. 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;"

It is contended by the respondent that the zinc sheet shed which covers the machinery was leased out to him by the appellants. This shed falls within the definition of building under Section 2(iii). This contention requires examination.

5. 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 III, 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, new ward No. 23, Block No. 14, TS No. 411, total area 10156 square feet municipal assessment No. 22