Building includes ground on which superstructure stands.

S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.

1. This appeal against the judgment of Anantanarayanan, J. arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant in the Sub-Court at Pudukottah for evicting the respondent from a certain property in the West Main Street, at Pudukottah for a mandatory injunction to demolish the structure put up thereon, and for damages The suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the finding that the property being a building, the appellant could not sustain the suit for eviction by reason of the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. On appeal Anantanarayanan, J. while upholding the right of the respondent to protection under the said Rent Control Act held that there was no prohibition under that enactment to entertain the suit and pass a decree in conformity with the provisions thereof The learned Judge accordingly allowed the appeal in part granting a decree for possession but at the same time declaring that as the property involved in the suit was a building coming within the ambit of the definition of that term in the Act the Court will be powerless to execute the decree. The appellant feeling aggrieved by this limitation in the matter of the execution of the decree has filed this appeal. To appreciate the point that falls for determination in this appeal it is necessary to state a few facts : The suit property is the southern half of T.S. No. 2379 in Pudukottai Town. The entire area covered by that survey number was originally a vacant site but it was owned in severalty by two persons. The northern half belonged to one Ramaswami while the southern half belonged to Ramachandran and his brother whose properties were managed by the Court of Wards. In the year 1926 one Venkatachari obtained a lease of the entire property from the two owners for a period of ten years under two different documents with a view to put up a cinema theatre thereon. After obtaining the lease he put up a theatre which was originally named as Gaiety Talkies and which later on came to be known as Raja Talkies. On 4th January, 1936 Venkatachari who Was the owner of the entire superstructure purchased the northern half of the site from Ramaswami and about nine months thereafter he sold what he bought together with his rights to the superstructure of the theatre half of which was on the southern side to the respondent's predecessor-in-title. The theatre was being continued to run by the respondent's father who did so after periodically obtaining lease of the southern half of the site from its owner. Exhibit A-I which is one of such lease deeds can be taken as typical of the contents of such lease. That document recites that the lease was taken for the purpose of conducting cinema and that on the expiry of the lease the lessee should deliver possession of the land. When the respondent's father was conducting the cinema (Raja Talkies) partition disputes arose in his family between him and the respondent which culminated in a suit in the Sub-Court, Pudukottah. A Receiver Was appointed to take charge of properties pending the suit. The running of the cinema had to be stopped during the pendency of the suit for certain reasons which are not necessary to be examined here. The appellant who appears to be a keen businessman took advantage of the situation. He bought a vacant site immediately south of the suit property, constructed a theatre called Palaniappa Talkies and began running the same. Presumably he thought that the existence of a theatre immediately on the north was a potential danger and therefore, negotiated for the lease of the theatre from the Receiver for the purpose of storing his building materials to be used in the construction of Palaniappa Talkies. Shortly thereafter he purchased while the lease in his favour of the theatre was still in force, the southern half of T.S. No. 2389 from Ramachandra. In the meantime the entire property covered by the northern half, part of the superstructure of the