ORDER

This revision petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.72 of 2022 in R.C.No.17 of 2022 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Secunderabad, wherein the respondent herein filed the said I.A., under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the CPC’) to reject the petition filed by the petitioner herein in R.C.No.17 of 2022.

2. In the said I.A., it is contended by the respondent that the trial Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain R.C.No.17 of 2022 under Section 10 (2) (i) of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for brevity ‘the Act’) and Section 2 (iii) of the Act defines building i.e., building means any house or hut or part of a house or hut, let or to be let separately for residential or non-

residential purposes and includes-

(a) the gardens grounds garages and out houses, if any, appurtenant to such house or hut or part of a house or hut and let or to be let along with such house or hut or part of such house or hut ;

(b) any furniture supplied or any fittings affixed by the landlord for use in such house or hut or part of a house or hut ;

but does not include a room in a hotel or a boarding house.”

3. The petitioner/respondent further contended that from a bare perusal of Section 2 (iii) of the Act, it is clear and evident that building would not mean vacant land. The matters pertaining to vacant land do not fall under the scope of the Act as the Act exclusively deals with matters in relation to buildings. The petitioner/respondent further contended that the disputes in relation to vacant land that was leased out by erstwhile vendors of the respondent to the petitioner which does not involve leasing out of the building as per the lease deed bearing document No.964 of 1962 and it is very clear and evident that only vacant land was handed over to the petitioner and subsequently it has erected super structures in order to run retail outlet. The lease deed does not involve leasing out a building and it is very clear and evident.

As such the petition is not maintainable under the Act.

4. The respondent therein filed counter stating that rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is not applicable to the proceedings of the Rent Controller Court, since there is a special enactment governing the procedure of present proceedings, CPC is not applicable. In view of the same, the I.A., is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. His further contention was that the definition of building as defined under Section 2 (iii) of the Act, precedes that unless in this Act, the context otherwise requires – which is to be considered and read as a part of the definition and also submitted that the definition of building as under the Act is to be given a liberal meaning as laid down by number of judgments of various Courts. The dominant purpose of lease between the parties is to run petrol pump, therefore, the land along with the structures form part of the lease. The schedule in the lease acknowledges permanent structures on the land were built by the petitioner herein which was with the permission of respondent that does not mean that the same does not fall under the definition of Building as leased out to the petitioner therein.

His further contention was that the expenditure on super structures does not define lease and it is to be noted that the lease was for the purpose of running a petrol pump and petitioner therein entered into the said lease for the purpose of super structures on the land which fall into the definition of building and in view of the same the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Considering the petition and counter averments, the trial Court held that the vacant land does not come under the Buildings under the Act. Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petitio