Both lease deeds constituting composite lease.

Somasundaram, J.

1. The Second respondent in O.S. No. 441 of 1981, who failed before both the Courts below, is the appellant in this second appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this second appeal by their nomenclature given in the suit

2. The facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the second appeal are as follows:

The plaintiff filed the suit, O.S. No. 441 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchi against the defendants for recovery of possession of the properties described in Schedules A, B and C and for other reliefs contending that the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit became lessees under the plaintiff in respect of A Schedule properties under a lease deed dt. 13-9-1975 for a period of six years on monthly rent of Rs.350/- and that the defendants had also executed a lease agreement dt. 22-9-1975 in respect of the machineries and "Thalavada Samans" described in B and C Schedules in the plaint, and that the said lease deeds were executed for the purpose of running a tannery. The further case of the plaintiff is that the lease of both the building and the machineries is for a fixed period of six years on and from 1-9-1975.

3. The defendants resisted the suit contending inter alia that though the period of lease was over, hey are statutory tenants entitled to the benefits of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act and, therefore, the suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties as framed is not maintainable.

4. The trial Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence on record - both oral and documentary-found that the lease of the building under Ex.A1 and the lease of the machineries under Ex. A2 were granted to run the tannery business with the machineries belonging to the plaintiff and embedded in the building covered by the lease deed, Ex.A1 and, therefore, the defendants are not entitled to the benefits of the Act and the suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties as framed is maintainable and consequently decreed the suit. As against the judgment of the trial court the second defendant alone filed an appeal in A.S.No.209 of 1982 on the file of the District Court, Tiruchi. The appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Courts below the second defendant has filed the present second appeal.

5. The only point argued by Mr. V.K. Muthusamy, learned Counsel for the second defendant, is as follows: The lease of the building and the lease of the machineries were granted separately under two documents Exs.A1 and A2 respectively; Exs.A1 and A2 were not written on the same day; the building and the machineries were not leased out under Exs.A1 and A2 respectively as a going concern; The lease of the building and the machineries granted under Exs.A1 and A2 do not go to constitute a composite lease and, therefore, the second defendant is entitled to the benefit of the Act and the suit for recovery of possession as framed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. In support of his contention learned Counsel relied on the decision in Ramachandran v. Lakshminarayanaswami 1976 II M.LJ. 107 and another decision in R.K. RAO v. M.S. Meyyappan . Mr. M.R. Narayanaswami, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff would contend that both the leases viz., the lease of the building under Ex. Al and the lease of the machineries under Ex.A2 commenced on the same day and both are for a fixed period of six years from 1-9-1975; the machineries covered by Ex.A2 are situated in the building covered by the lease deed, Ex. A1; the object of the lease is for tannery and, therefore, the lease must be construed as a composite lease. Learned Counsel further contended that as the building and the machineries are leased out under Exs.A1 and A2 respectively to the defendants for carrying on the tannery business, Section 30(iii) of the Act is attracted and, therefore, the de