The meaning of "premises" under Section 2(i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

( 1 ) DOES the land with respect to which a decree for possession has been passed fall within the meaning of "premises" as defined in S. 2 (i) of Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act ). This question assumes importance since it is not disputed that if what had been let out was actually "premises", S. 50 of the Act was a bar to the respondents obtaining the decree for possession.

( 2 ) ON 24. 9. 1970 the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents entered into a lease agreement with the petitioner with regard to a piece of land. The lease was to commence "on the handing over the possession of the said land with the planned boundary wall around". Clause 3 of the agreement was :

"that the said LESSEES will provide shed, office as we 1 as Chowkidar hut at their own expenses and costs and will remove all materials at their own cost at the time of termination of the lease, mutually arranged and agreed. "

( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner, after having entered into possession of the land, raised construction as per the terms of the lease agreement. It is also not disputed that the agreement being for eleven months it was renewed from time to time. However, it is not the case of the present petitioner that after the expiry of the initial period of eleven months any fresh agreement had been entered into.

( 4 ) ON 18. 9. 1985, after serving a notice u/s. 106 of the T. P. A. , the respondents instituted a suit for possession. One of the objections taken to the suit by the petitioner was that it was not maintainable in view of S. 50 of the Act. It was alleged that what had been let out were "premises" as defined in S. 2 (1) of the Act. Clause (i) defines "premises" as under:-

" (I) "premises" means any building or part of a building which is, or is intended to be, let separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose, and includes,-- (i) the garden, grounds and outhouses, if any, appertaining to such building or part of the building ; (ii) any furniture supplied by landlord for use in such building or part of the building ; but does not include a room in a hotel or lodging house ;"

( 5 ) THE learned trial court held that only a vacant piece of land had been let out and that consequently the provisions of the Act were not attracted and as such the suit was not barred under the said Act. It thus passed a decree for possession.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment the petitioner filed an appeal but without success. The first Appellate Court also agreed with the learned trial court that what had been let out was not "premises" within the meaning of S. 2 (i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Hence, this second appeal.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the lease agreement and has submitted that both the courts below had not appreciated the point involved in the right perspective and that although what had been initially let out was a piece of land with a boundary wall since constructions in terms of the lease agreement had been raised without any objection from the owners-landlords, therefore, it could not be said that what had been let out were not "premises" within the meaning of S. 2 (i) of the Act.

( 8 ) THERE is no dispute that the Act would be applicable if what had been let out was "premises" within the meaning ofs. 2 (i)of the said Act. In order to determine whether the lease was with regard to vacant land or of "premises" we must necessarily take into account not merely the form alone but the substance of the transaction as well. [see A. R. Salay Mohd. vs. Jaffer Mohd. 1969 RCR 322 (SC) and Prabhat Mfg. Ind. Society vs. Banwari Lal 37 (1989) DLT 4 7 (SC)]. The lease agreement shows that at the time of the transaction there were no super-structures and no buildings. A sentence taken out from clause (2) of the lease agreement has already been reproduced by me above. It refers to the commencement of the lease "on the handing over the possession of the said land with the planned boundar