JUDGMENT Hari Lal Agrawal, J. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is on behalf of the landlords of a parcel of land given in lease to respondent no. 5 under a kerayanama dated 10.5.1965, a copy of which has been made Annexure-2 to the writ application; Originally the premises in question was leased to the father of said respondent no.5, Abdul Majid under a kerayanama dated 24.2.1955 by the father of the present petitioners. A copy of the said kerayanama is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. The matter arises out of a proceeding taken by respondent no.5 for fixation of fair rent of the premises in question under sections 5 (1) (2) and 8 (1) (b) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The short question that has been raised for our consideration is as to whether the provisions of the Act would apply to the premises In question or not. In order to appreciate this question the facts may be briefly stated. It is not disputed that the demised premises was a vacant and parti piece of land at the time of its original lease under Annexure-1 in the year 1955. This position is very clearly manifested and is apparent from the recitals made in the document of lease (Annexure-1) where it has been stated that the premises in question was a parti piece of land having not even a thatch over it, for the purpose of starting business in timber (Karbar Lakri Gola). It is not the case of respondent no. 5 nor it has been contended before us by his learned counsel that the premises in question, after it was demised in favour of his father in the year 1955, had ever gone in the hands of the landlords. The admitted position is that since its demise it always remained in occupation of the lessee where they set up a timber business. The rate of rent under the original kerayanama was Rs.88/- per month. However, the original lessee died and, perhaps, it necessitated the execution of another kerayanama (Annexure-2) by the present respondent no. 5, the son of the original lessee. This time, the rate of rent was raised from Rs. 88/- to Rs. The rate of rent under the original kerayanama was Rs.88/- per month. However, the original lessee died and, perhaps, it necessitated the execution of another kerayanama (Annexure-2) by the present respondent no. 5, the son of the original lessee. This time, the rate of rent was raised from Rs. 88/- to Rs. 101/- in the kerayanama itself, and, we have been informed that it was raised from time to rime to Rs.150/ per month. In this document (Annexure -2) the demised premises has been described in these words :- "Holding No. 22, Ward No.3, Circle No.5, Andar Municipality Bhagalpur Ka gola maya parti zamin Ander charo taraf chardiwari jiski chaohadai hasab jail men diya gaya hai.” A little later in this document it has been stipulated by the lessee that whatever construction or structure will be raised on the parti land will be by the lessee himself and whenever he would be called upon to vacate the premises he would give vacant possession of the land and will remove the structures and constructions set up by him on the said land. 3. It appears that in the year 1972 relation between the parties got strained and it led to the filing of an application under section 5 of the Act by respondent no. 5 before the House Controller, Bhagalpur (Respondent no. 3) for fixation of the fair rent. One of the pleas advanced by the petitioners before the House Controller was that the premises in question being parti, the provisions of the Act did not apply as it was not covered within the mischief of the definition of “building” as defined in section 2 (aa) of the Act. This contention was rejected by the House Controller and be fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs.106/- per month. An appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Collector, Bhagalpur (Respondent no. 2) where their plea mentioned above was accepted and the respondent no. 2 by his order dated 15.3.1975 (Annexure-4) set aside the order of the House Controller taking the view that the holding was let out as parti land, therefore, the tenancy did not come within the purview of the Act. 4. 2) where their plea mentioned above was accepted and the respondent no. 2 by his order dated 15.3.1975 (Annexure-4) set aside the order of the House Controller taking the view that the holding was let out as parti land, therefore, the tenancy did not come within the purview of the Act. 4. This time, respondent no.5 took the matter in revision before the Commissioner of Bhagalpur (Respondent no.1), who, by his order dated 23.10.1975 (Annexure 5) took a view contrary to that of the Collector and allowed the revision affirming the decision of the House Controller. The petitioners have, therefore, come to this Court. 5. It is not disputed that if the premises is not covered by the definition of "building", the provisions of the Act would have no application to it and the fixation of fair rent proceedings were not maintainable. "Building" as defined in the Act means :- "any building or hut or part of building or hut, let or to be Let separately for residential or non-residential purpose, and includes, (i) the garden, ground and out houses. if any appurtenant to such building or hut or part of such building or hut, and (ii) any furniture supplied by the land-lord for use in such building or hut or part of a building or hut." It is, therefore, evident that parti land is not intended to be covered by this definition Divergent views have been taken by the authorities under the Act referred to above on the use of different expressions in the two keraynamas. The Commissioner has found in his order that the premises in question "has been initially taken as a parti piece of land in year 1955 by the father of the petitioner on a monthly rental of Rs.88/- per month for a period of 3 years up to 1.3.1958 under unregistered deed with the stipulation that temporary sheds-might be constructed by the lessee for the purpose of carrying on timber business." Later on, however, under an erroneous impression that since the character of the tenancy has changed on the ground of the structures put by the lessee on the parti piece of land, he held that the provisions of the Act would apply to this case, This view of the learned Commissioner is entirely erroneous and contrary to two Bench decisions of this Court to which I shall refer presently, Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5, however. contended that in the year 1965 the lease was not granted with respect to the parti piece of land, but there were structures of the same, This argument is based upon the use of the expression 'Gola' In this document. I would reject this argument for the simple reason that it has never been the case of the lessee that any construction was raised by the land lords, i.e., the petitioners, and in view of the admitted case and also the clear finding of the Commissioner that the land as originally demised was a parti piece of had, constructions, if any, put by the lessee could not change the character of the land, as wrongly held by the Commissioner. To me it appears that the use of the word 'Gola' on the second occasion at the time of the execution of the lease (Annexure-2) was in a loose manner as the land had been used for 10 years as 'Gala for carrying on the timber business by the family of the lessee. Be that as it may, even assuming that there was some constructions existing on the demised premises in the year 1965 when Annexure-2 was executed, it does not establish that it was put up by the landlords, and that is the crux of the case. As such, It becomes admitted that the landlords when they leased out the premises in question, it was parti piece of land. 6. In the case of Smt. Jugal Kishori Devi and others. As such, It becomes admitted that the landlords when they leased out the premises in question, it was parti piece of land. 6. In the case of Smt. Jugal Kishori Devi and others. V. Ashok Mills and Foundries and others certain lands were demised in the year 1948 along with the building standing there' on for a period of 30 years. The total lands measured 16 kathas and 19 1/2 dhurs and the construction portion was only on 3 kathas 17 dhurs there of. On these facts a question arose as to whether the lease was governed by the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act III of 1947) or by the Transfer of Property Act. On a consideration of a large number of authorities, it was held that the subject matter of the lease in its true nature and character was not a 'building' as defined in section 2 (aa) of the Act, but was a vacant land for the purpose of erecting building for industrial use and so that lease was governed not by the provisions of Bihar Act III of 1947 but by the mere general provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. This Court had an occasion to consider a similar question in the Case of Bansi Sao V. Madha Das and another. In this case what was let out to the tenant originally was a parti piece of land. The tenant there after had put some buts there on. Sometime thereafter the landlord instituted a case before the House Controller for eviction of the tenant in which the plea taken by the tenant was that the provisions of the Bihar Act III of 1947 had no application to the case because there was no lease of the 'building' within the meaning of the Act. The Controller and then by the Commissioner in revision having rejected his plea, he instituted a suit in the civil Court and the matter ultimately came to this Court when it was held that putting some structures by the tenant would not change the nature of the premises and the House Controller had no jurisdiction to order for eviction of the tenant. 7. 7. The case before us is fully covered by the ratio of the above cases and from the facts found by the authorities themselves it is clear that the premises in question was not "building" within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, the provisions of the Act had no application, and could not govern the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties within the meaning of the Act. It is, therefore, apparent that the application filed by respondent no. 5 for fixation of the premises in question was wholly without jurisdiction and not maintainable. All the decisions given by the different authorities, namely, respondents 3, 2 and 1 are, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction and must be quashed. 8. I would, accordingly, allow this application, and set aside all the three orders (Annexures 3, 4 and 5) passed by respondents 3, 2 and 1, respectively. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. I agree Application allowed.