ORDER
U.P. Singh, J.
1. Both these revision applications are directed against a common order passed by the Subordinate Judge in Title Suit No. 26/91 directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent as also the current rent under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. The defence has also been struck off.
2. Mr. S.C. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the suit as such was not maintainable under the Bihar Building Rent Control Act since the leased out property to the petitioner was only a parti land bounded with walls and, therefore, the same would not be covered within the definition of ‘building’ as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act.
3. In order to prove the fact that only the parti land was leased out to the petitioner, reliance was placed on the lease deed itself and the map of the land in question. It was pointed out that only parti land bounded with walls were leased out to the petitioner and, later, the petitioner constructed his own structure. These facts could not be disputed by the respondents. However, it was contended on their behalf that since the parti land was bounded by brick walls, it would be covered within the definition of ‘building’ and, in support of the same reliance was placed on a decision of this Court reported in (1991) 1 BLJR 350. The contention of the respondents has to be rejected. The aforesaid case is clearly distinguishable on facts, because the property let out to the petitioner in the said case was ‘Katra’ bounded by walls and it was not a open parti land. That makes all the difference in so far as the facts of the present case is concerned. Therefore, the only contention raised on behalf of the respondents is rejected and they may, however, seek another appropriate remedy under the Transfer of Property Act, if so advised.
4. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in AIR 1961 Patna 330 and 1979 BLJR 139, in support of his contention that in a case where a parti land, may be bounded by walls, is leased out, the same would never be covered within the definition of the word ‘building’ as defined under the Act.
The word ‘building’ has been defined in Section 2(b) of the Act which reads as
follows:–
“2(b) “building” means any building, or hut or a part of the building or hut, let or to be let separately for residential or non-residential purposes, and includes:–
(i) the garden grounds and outhouses, if any, appurtenant to such building or hut or part of such building or hut; and
(ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or hut or part of a building or hut;”
5. On plain construction of the provisions contained in Section 2(b) of the Act, by no means, a parti land will be included in the definition of ‘building’. In the present case, the parti land bounded by walls was leased out to the petitioner without any structure thereon. It was not a case where parti land was appurtaining to certain portion of the building or structure standing thereon and, therefore, parti land by itself would not come within the purview of the said definition under Section 2(b) of the Act, so as to (fall) within the fold of the definition. Thus, it has to be held that the suit itself was not maintainable under the Bihar Building Rent Control Act, and the defence was illegally struck off.
6. In the result, the order dated 11-8-1992 passed by the Subordinate Judge in Title Suit No. 26/91 is set aside and both the applications arc allowed, but without any order as
to costs.