Tenancy of land and unauthorised constructions did not create statutory accommodation or estoppel against ejectment.

A tenancy of land with constructions did not amount to "accommodation" under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 because the statutory definition was confined to a building or part of a building. The landlord's suit for ejectment was therefore not barred by the need for prior District Magistrate permission. Mere knowledge by the landlord of unauthorised constructions, without any representation or conduct inducing reliance, did not create estoppel against termination of the lease. The lessee's right to remove constructions under the Transfer of Property Act did not prevent determination of the lease or ejectment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demised land with the constructions standing on it constituted "accommodation" within the meaning of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 so that prior permission of the District Magistrate was necessary before instituting the suit for ejectment; (ii) Whether the landlord was estopped from seeking ejectment on the footing that constructions had been made on the land with knowledge of the landlord.

Issue (i): Whether the demised land with the constructions standing on it constituted "accommodation" within the meaning of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 so that prior permission of the District Magistrate was necessary before instituting the suit for ejectment.

Analysis: The definition of "accommodation" under Section 2(a) covered residential and non-residential accommodation in a building or part of a building. The evidence showed that the structures erected by the original tenant never became the property of the landlord and that the appellant was in substance only a tenant of the land. A mere tenancy of land, without the land itself amounting to accommodation as defined by the Act, did not attract Section 3. The absence of District Magistrate's permission therefore did not bar the suit.

Conclusion: The premises did not fall within "accommodation" for the purposes of the Act and the suit was not barred under Section 3.

Issue (ii): Whether the landlord was estopped from seeking ejectment on the footing that constructions had been made on the land with knowledge of the landlord.

Analysis: The appellant failed to establish any representation or conduct by the landlord on which a plea of estoppel could rest. Mere knowledge of unauthorised constructions and inaction by the lessor did not prevent the landlord from determining the lease and filing a suit for ejectment. The lessee's right under Section 108(h) of the Transfer of Property Act to remove constructions while in possession did not create any bar to termination of the lease under Section 111.

Conclusion: The plea of estoppel was rejected and did not defeat the suit for ejectment.

Final Conclusion: The suit for ejectment was maintainable and the appellant was liable to be evicted.

Ratio Decidendi: A tenancy of land alone does not fall within a statutory definition of accommodation limited to buildings or parts of buildings, and mere knowledge by the landlord of unauthorised constructions does not, without more, create an estoppel against determination of the lease and ejectment.

---