Cinema lease not 'accommodation' under Rent Control Act. Landlord granted eviction decree. Appeal allowed.

The court concluded that the cinema theatre lease did not fall under the definition of 'accommodation' as per the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The landlord was granted a decree for eviction, and the respondent was given one year to vacate the premises due to financial considerations. The appeal was allowed, with each party bearing their own costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a lease of a fully equipped cinema theatre with projectors, fittings and other cinema apparatus amounted to an "accommodation" within section 2(a) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to eviction and consequential relief on the footing that the demise was a lease of business rather than a lease of building.

Issue (i): Whether a lease of a fully equipped cinema theatre with projectors, fittings and other cinema apparatus amounted to an "accommodation" within section 2(a) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947.

Analysis: The statutory expression "accommodation" was construed as referring to a building or part of a building let as such, together with appurtenant additions that serve the beneficial enjoyment of the premises. The inclusive items in the definition, such as furniture and fittings, were treated as ancillary to the building, not as converting a business undertaking into protected premises. Applying the test of dominant intention, the lease was found to be composite in form but substantially directed to the transfer of a running cinema business, with the building playing a secondary role. The proviso inserted by amendment was understood as clarifying, and not enlarging, the scope of the main definition.

Conclusion: The demise did not fall within the statutory definition of "accommodation" and was not protected by the rent control Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to eviction and consequential relief on the footing that the demise was a lease of business rather than a lease of building.

Analysis: Since the lease was held to be outside the Act, the landlord's right to seek eviction was not barred by rent control protection. The court also directed that mesne profits be fixed by the trial court from the date of the suit, and granted time to vacate in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to a decree for eviction and ancillary relief.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the tenancy was held outside rent control protection, and the landlord obtained eviction relief with mesne profits to be determined by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: In construing rent control definitions referring to a building or part of a building, the decisive test is the dominant intention of the parties; a lease whose true subject is a running business or industrial undertaking, with the building merely incidental, is not a lease of protected accommodation.

---