Building includes the site enclosed by compound also.

Satyanarayana Rao, J.- This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision, dismissing his suit for recovery of possession of the property specified in the schedule attached to the plaint and in the plan. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives, appellants 2 to 7, are brought on record and the appeal is continued by them.

The dispute relates to a piece of land, on which the Gaiety Theatre stands besides other structures. The plan attached to the Plaint is marked as Exhibit P-1 and it contains the details of the properties sought to be recovered. The property in the suit is B X Y A in the Plan., bounded by Blacker’s Road on the south, Dams Road on the west, a street on the north and the land belonging to Casino Theatre on the east. The space reserved for the parking of cars at the Gaiety Theatre is marked C X Y D. The Gaiety Theatre is in B C D A. The whole property B X Y A is enclosed by compound walls on all sides with gates on the south. Besides the superstructure of the Gaiety Theatre in the portion marked B C D A, there is what is described as a tiled shed F G H E, which contains a booking office and two rooms. Besides these structures, there are certain other sheds in the north of the site and other modern convenience for the benefit of those who witness cinema shows. There is also some open space on all sides of the structure of the theatre.

All the property excluding the superstructure of the Gaiety Theatre belongs to the estate of late Sir Haji Ismail Sait and defendants 2 to 6 in the action are the receivers appointed by this Court in C.S. Nos. 280 and 286 of 1939 for the administration of that estate. The first defendant is the owner of the superstructure of the theatre and he is also the lessee of the rest of the property, holding the same under a lease for seven years commencing from 1st May, 1940 obtained from the then receivers of the estate of Sir Haji Ismail Sait with the sanction of the Court. The plaintiff is a subsequent lessee who obtained a lease of the said property excluding the superstructure from the said receivers to come into effect after the termination of the lease in favour of the first defendant, that is, from 1st May, 1947. Plaintiff claimed vacant possession of the property after the superstructure of the theatre is removed and mesne profits or damages from the first defendant; and he sought to make the receivers also liable for damages or mesne profits as under the lease in favour of the first defendant three months’ time to vacate the premises was given by their predecessors after the termination of the period fixed in the lease. This contention, however, may not be very material in the view we take of the case.

The main contesting defendant in the action was the first defendant who claimed that by virtue of the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946 (Madras Act XV of 1946),-hereinafter called the Act - the plaintiff was not entitled to evict him from the property as what was leased to him was a “building” within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Act and that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the suit as the only remedy of the plaintiff if any, was to take proceedings under the Act for eviction improper grounds are made out for such eviction. Though as many as eight issues were framed in the suit, the main questions considered were the two questions above stated. The suit was tried by Subba Rao, J., and the parties adduced no oral evidence, but were content to have the suit disposed of on the documentary evidence in the case.

The learned Judge, after an elaborate consideration of the documentary evidence and the law bearing upon the subject, arrived at the conclusion that the property demised was a “building” within the meaning of the Act and that in view of the provisions of the Act, particularly, section 7, the Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit.

The view taken by the lear