ORDER 1. The respondent's application under section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 for fixation of standard rent in respect of the premises in question was rejected by the Rent Controlling Authority as untenable. The District Judge Raipur, has set aside the order and remanded the case to the Rent Controlling Authority for its determination. The defendant landlord now appeals. 2. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether what was leased out to the respondent was 'accommodation' with in the meaning of the Act. 3. A house, bearing Municipal No. 401 in Chhotapara ward, Raipur, is owned by the husband of the appellant. In this house, the appellant was running a hotel for students providing boarding and lodging for about thirty of them. The hostel was called the 'Sarkar Hostel'. By a lease deed (Ex. A-1), dated 27-7-1962, the appellant entered into a contract of lease with the respondent in respect of the 'Sarkar Hostel' aforesaid, inter alia, on the following terms and conditions: (1) That the lease shall be for a period of five years from 1-8-1962 on a premium of Rs. 250.00 per month payable in advance by the 10th of every calendar month. (2) That the purpose of the lease shall be to run the business of a hostel, i. e., lodging and boarding house and no other. (3) That the name of the hostel shall continue to remain 'Sarkar Hostel'. (4) That the lease, being of the hostel business only, the lessee shall not be a tenant of the building nor shall he in any way enjoy the tenant's rights in respect of it, nor alter the structure of the building, nor do any other work therein. The lessor contends that what was 'leased to the respondent under the aforesaid lease was not 'accommodation' within the meaning of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act)' 4. The lessor contends that what was 'leased to the respondent under the aforesaid lease was not 'accommodation' within the meaning of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act)' 4. The word 'accommodation' has been defined in section 2(a) of the Act to mean– "any building, or part of a building whether residential or non-residential and includes,–(i) any land which is not being used for agricultural purposes; (ii) garden, grounds, garages and outhouses, if any, appurtenant to such building or part of the building ; (iii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof; (iv) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or part of building" 5. In the instant case the stipulation in the deed of lease (Ex. A-1) that the premises in question were neither intended to be demised as an 'accommodation' as defined above nor could the respondent claim any right therein as a tenant will not avail, if, in effect, what was demised was 'accommodation' as defined in the Act. 6. The lease in question for running the business of boarding and lodging for students in the premises belonging to the husband of the appellant under the name and style of 'Sarkar Hostel' implied – (a) a lease of the partly furnished premises for the purpose of running a lodging and boarding hostel for about thirty students, and (b) a lease of the name 'Sarkar Hostel' and its good will as a boarding and lodging house for students. 7. The case of the respondent lessee is that the lease in question is mainly of the partly furnished building for the purpose of running a boarding and lodging house for students therein and that the stipulation in the deed of lease that the business carried on there by the respondent should be known as the 'Sarkar Hostel' was only incidental to it. On the other hand the learned counsel for the appellant lessor contends that what has been leased out is the business of 'Sarkar Hostel' as a boarding and lodging house for students, and that the giving of possession of the premises for running it therein was only incidental to it. 8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the appellant lessor contends that what has been leased out is the business of 'Sarkar Hostel' as a boarding and lodging house for students, and that the giving of possession of the premises for running it therein was only incidental to it. 8. For construing a lease for determining whether the premises comprised therein were intended to be demised as an 'accommodation' as defined in the Act, the Supreme Court in Uttamchand Vs. S. M. Lalwani 1965 JLJ 370=1965 MPLJ 594= AIR 1965 SC 716 , said: 'we must determine the character of the lease by asking ourselves as to what was the dominant intention of the parties in executing the document'. 9. What then was the dominant intention of the parties when they entered into the present transaction? 10. To me it appears that the dominant intention of the respondent in accepting the lease from the appellant was to use the building as a hostel for students. What was intended to be leased was the hostel business which was being carried on there by the appellant under the name and style of 'Sarkar Hostel'. The building in with the hostel business was being cared on was only incidental to the business. This is not a case where the subject-matter of the lease was a building for the purpose of carrying on the business of a hostel for students because here, prior to the lease the business of running a hostel for students was being carried on by the appellant which business had acquired a reputation and a good-will and which was being leased out to the respondent more or less as a running concern. In the words of the Supreme Court, this is not a lease under which the respondent entered into possession for the purpose of residing in the building but is a case where he entered into the lease for the purpose of running the hostel located in the building known as the ‘Sarkar Hostel’. No doubt, a hostel of this kind shall have to be located in some building and consequently the mere fact that the lease incidentally also comprised the building will not make it a lease in respect of an 'accommodation' as defined in the Act. No doubt, a hostel of this kind shall have to be located in some building and consequently the mere fact that the lease incidentally also comprised the building will not make it a lease in respect of an 'accommodation' as defined in the Act. We do not know what reputation and good will the hostel business carried on in the building in the name and style of 'Sarkar Hostel' had acquired and how far that had entered into the consideration of the parties in determining its premium. For, it may well be that qua a building where a hostel business may be carried on by a person, the premium in question may not be valuable at all; but as 'Sarkar Hostel' which had acquired a business reputation and good will, it would be quite valuable. 11. I am, therefore, of opinion that the lease in question was not in respect of an 'accommodation' as defined in the Act. 12. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order of the learned District Judge is hereby set aside and that of the rent Controlling Authority dismissing the application of the respondent as untenable restored. The costs of all the Courts shall be payable by the respondent. Counsel's fee Rs.50.