The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Rent Control Act and the significance of the nature of the land in dispute in determining the applicability of the Act.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) PERUSED the record.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved by the decree of the first appellate court, whereby allowing the defendants appeal, the decree passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff has been reversed, the plaintiff-appellant has now approached this Court in second appeal seeking redress praying for the setting aside of the decree passed by the first appellate court and restoration of the decree passed by the trial court.

( 4 ) A learned single Judge had, vide the order dated 16. 9. 1996, framed the following substantial questions of law which were found to have arisen in this appeal for consideration :

(i) Whether, the appellate court came to a proper finding regarding the application of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the facts of the present case. (ii) Whether, on the facts of the case, it could have been inferred that the lease was for manufacturing purpose.

( 5 ) THE facts in brief shorn of detail and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass.

( 6 ) THE suit giving rise to this appeal had been filed on the allegations, inter alia, that the defendant Tara Chand was a tenant of an open piece of land which formed part of the Premises no. 26/141 situate at Sultanganj, Agra, which had been let out to him at a rent of Rs. 35 per month. The tenancy was a month-to-month tenancy according to the English Calendar month. The tenancy had been terminated vide the combined notice dated 20. 5. 1978 but as in spite of the notice terminating the tenancy, the defendant had neither vacated the premises nor cleared of the arrears, hence the suit.

( 7 ) THE plaintiff had prayed for a decree for the eviction of the defendants from the land in dispute and for the recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation.

( 8 ) THE aforesaid suit was contested by the defendant on various grounds. The service of notice was denied. It was asserted that the defendant was not a defaulter in the payment of rent. In paragraph No. 9 of the written statement, the defendant asserted that the property No. 26/149 sultanganj, Agra, which has been let out to him comprised of a piece of land covered by tin-sheds and chappar. It was also claimed that the property had originally been let out to the defendant by Sri Chokhey Lal in the year 1970. Chokhey Lal was one of the co-owners and by mutual arrangement between the plaintiff and Chokhey Lal, the defendant was paying rent regularly to the plaintiff. Various other pleas were also raised including the plea to the effect that the suit was barred by Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ).

( 9 ) THE parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases.

( 10 ) SINCE the dispute had been raised in respect of the nature of the tenement which according to the plaintiff was an open piece of vacant land, but according to the defendant, it was covered by tin sheets and chhappar, the main question which arose for determination was as to whether the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and eviction) Act, 1972, could be deemed to be attracted and the civil court was competent to entertain and grant any decree as prayed for by the plaintiff in view of the bar contained in section 20 of the aforesaid Act.

( 11 ) THE plaintiff besides examining himself as a witness had examined Ram Prasad as P. W. 2. In his deposition recorded before the trial court, he had asserted that at the time when the letting had taken place, the land in dispute was an open piece of land and no construction existed thereon. In support of his case, reiterated in his deposition before the trial court, the plaintiff further relied upon the counter foils of the rent receipts which were duly signed by the defendant himself and contained the description of the land which had been