1966 (3) TMI 83 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Defines 'Building' in Land Reforms Act

The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of the term 'building' under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Court held that a brick ... - Issues:Interpretation of the term 'building' under s. 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (U.P. Act 1 of 1951).Analysis:The case involved a dispute over whether a brick kiln leased out to the appellant constituted a 'building' within the meaning of s. 9 of the Act. The respondents, as owners of the brick kiln on two plots of land, sought arrears of rent from the appellant. The lower courts had differing opinions on whether the brick kiln qualified as a building, leading to appeals and subsequent judgments.The Additional Civil Judge held that the brick kiln was not a building, resulting in the vesting of the land in the State. This decision was challenged by the respondents in Second Appeals to the High Court. The High Court determined that the brick kiln fell under the definition of a building as per s. 9 of the Act, granting the respondents the right to claim rent from the appellant.The Supreme Court analyzed the definition of 'building' under the Act, emphasizing that the term must be construed in its ordinary sense unless context dictates otherwise. Referring to a dictionary definition, the Court highlighted that a building need not always have a roof, and the determination of what constitutes a building is a matter of degree based on the facts of each case.In this specific case, the Court found that the brick kiln lacked walls and a roof, being essentially a pit with bricks by its sides. Consequently, the Court concluded that the brick kiln did not meet the criteria to be considered a building under s. 9 of the Act. As a result, the land, along with the brick kiln, vested in the State Government, and the respondents were not entitled to claim rent from the appellant for the specified period.Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, dismissing the suit filed by the respondents and ruling in favor of the appellant. The judgment clarified the interpretation of the term 'building' in the context of the Act, providing a detailed analysis based on the specific characteristics of the structure in question.