Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal against the order of our learned brother, Raman Nayar, J., allowing O.P. 59/56 (T) and quashing an order of the Government dated 4-1-1956. 2. The first respondent before us filed an application under Clause.4 of the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) 0.1950 for fixation of a fair-rent of the properties covered by a deed dated 30-11-1120. 3. According to the first respondent, the buildings bearing T-C. Nos. 980-A to E and 981, Puthan Chanthai Ward, Trivandrum city, were let out to the appellants on lease on an annual rent of Rs. 732/- and the first appellant. The Catholic Bank of India Ltd, was doing banking business therein. 4. The appellants filed objections before the Rent Controller objecting to the fixation of fair-rent and also on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. They also took the objection that the lease will not come within the purview of the Rent Control Order quoted above and as such, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Rent Controller overruled the objections of the appellants and held that the petitioner before him was a landlord and the Catholic Bank of India was a tenant, and fixed fair-rent at Rs. 110/- per mensem. 5. Against that decision, an appeal was taken by the appellants before the District Collector, Trivandrum, but the appeal was unsuccessful. 6. Against the order of the Collector, the appellants again filed a petition before the Government under Clause.16 of the Rent Control Order and the Government, differing from the two subordinate Tribunals, upheld the contentions of the appellants before us and reversed the orders of the Rent Controller and the Collector. The Government have construed the lease to be not a rent agreement coming within the purview of the Rent Control Order. 7. The landlord, the first respondent before us filed O. P. 59/56 under Art.226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Government dated 4-1-1956. 8. The application was opposed by the appellants on the main ground that the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Government construing the lease-deed in their favour. They also contended that the Government had jurisdiction to interfere with the order and take a view according to law. Our learned brother Mr. 8. The application was opposed by the appellants on the main ground that the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Government construing the lease-deed in their favour. They also contended that the Government had jurisdiction to interfere with the order and take a view according to law. Our learned brother Mr. Justice Raman Nayar, who heard the Original Petition, held that the reasoning of the Government in the matter of the interpretation of the lease-deed, showed a clear error apparent upon the face of the record and following the decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu v. Ahamed Ishaque (A.I.R. (1955 S. C. 233), quashed the order. The learned judge has gone through the lease-deed and come to the conclusion that it is really a lease coming within the purview of the Rent Control Order. 9. Against the order of Mr. Justice Raman Nayar, the appellants have filed this appeal. 10. The only contention before us of the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants is that the Government had jurisdiction under Clause.16 of the Rent Control Order to pass appropriate orders and in this case, it has construed the lease-deed and come to the conclusion that it does not come within the purview of the Rent Control Order, and that Mr. Justice Raman Nayar had no jurisdiction to interfere with this order of the Government under Art.226. 11. We have been taken through the lease-deed in question and we entirely agree with our learned brother, Raman Nayar, J., that the interpretation placed upon it by the Government is not warranted in law. Though the lease-deed provides for payment of the amounts in two half-yearly instalments and also refers to some land, in our opinion, the lease in question is a lease of buildings and as such, it is within the purview of the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order, 1950. 12. Though the lease-deed provides for payment of the amounts in two half-yearly instalments and also refers to some land, in our opinion, the lease in question is a lease of buildings and as such, it is within the purview of the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order, 1950. 12. "Building" has been defined in Clause.2(1) of the Rent Control Order as follows: "'Building' means any building or but or part of a building or hut, let or to be let separately for residential or non-residential purposes, and includes, (a) the garden, grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to such building, but or part of such building or but and let or to be let along with such building or hut; (b) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or hut, or part of a building or but but does not include a room in a hotel or boarding house." 13. The document before us makes it obligatory on the part of the first respondent to pay the municipal tax, water tax, scavenging tax and other dues in respect of the buildings in the property. Prominence is given to the buildings and the lands mentioned therein occupy only a very subordinate place. Even according to the definition of 'building', under the Rent Control Order, the garden and grounds, if any, appurtenant to such building are also included in the expression 'building'. In our view, the reference to some land in the document obviously means only as appurtenant to the building. The lands as such, do not appear to have any independent existence apart from the building. Apart from this, there are also materials to show that there are a number of buildings on this small plot. 14. We cannot agree with the contention of the learned counsel that Mr. Justice Raman Nayar had no jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of the Government under Art.226 of the Constitution.. Apart from the Supreme Court decision referred to by the learned judge, we may also refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Singh & others v. Deputy Custodian General, Evacuee Property & others (1958 S.C.J. 29) that the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with an error of law provided it exhibits a clear ignorance or disregard of law. In our view, such is the case in the interpretation placed by the Government regarding the lease-deed in question. 15. In the result, the order of the learned judge is confirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs of the first respondent fixed at Rs. 100/-. Dismissed.