G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18. 4. 1981 passed by the XIII addl City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in RA No. 715 of 1980, on his file, dismissing the appeal of the defendant on confirming the judgment and decree dated 8. 2. 1980 passed by the I Addi. I Munsiff, Bangalore in OS No. 2303 of 1974, on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS instituted the suit for specific performance of the agreement to surrender the extra space as per the agreements contained in Exs P-1 and p-2. ( 3 ) THIS Court, in its remand order dated 2. 11. 1978 passed in RSA No. 108 of 1978 directed the trial Court to raise two issues and to dispose of the suit in accordance with law, answering the two additional issues so raised. The said issues are: (1) Whether the suit is maintainable in view of S. 21 (1) of the karnataka Rent Control Act? and (2) Whether the provisions of the karnataka Rent Control Act would not apply to the facts of the case in view of the exemption provided in S. 31 of the karnataka Rent Control Act? ( 4 ) AFTER remand, the trial Court gave opportunity to the parties to adduce additional evidence and, appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the lease was a composite lease though the lease deeds were executed thrice and, in that,view, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the provisions of th,e Karnataka rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred) to as 'the Act'), were not applicable to the facts of the cases. In that view, the decree for enforcement of the specific performance already passed was reiterated. ( 5 ) THE defendant went up in appeal again to the City Civil Court, Bangalore, in RA No. 715 of 1980. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court, reassessing the evidence on record, agreed with the finding of the trial court that the leases were composite though they were executed at different times, the dominant purpose being the same viz. , the construction of a cinema theatre and to run the cinema shows. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court, reassessing the evidence on record, agreed with the finding of the trial court that the leases were composite though they were executed at different times, the dominant purpose being the same viz. , the construction of a cinema theatre and to run the cinema shows. In that view, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court agreed with the finding of the trial court that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the facts of the case in, view of the provisions contained in S 31 of the Act and he dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has come up with the above second appeal before this court. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously urged before me that since the three lease deeds were separately executed and regisstered, they were quite distinct and separate and they could not be considered as composite. In that view, he submitted that the appeal was entitled to succeed; the provisions of the Act did not apply to the facts of the case and the suit was liable to be dismissed. ( 7 ) AS against that, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents plaintiffs argued supporting the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate Court. ( 8 ) THE sole point, therefore, that arises for my consideration in this appeal is: 'whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the provisions of the Act did not apply to the facts of the case?' ( 9 ) WHETHER the provisions of the Act would apply or not dependls on the rental. S. 31 of the Act reads: "exemption in respect of certain buildings: - nothing contained m this part shall apply to a non-residential building the monthly rent of which exceeds live hundred rupees or the annual rental value of which exceeds six thousand rupees. ( 10 ) 11 the lease deeds are held to constitute a composite lease, odviously, the rental exceeds Rs. 500- per month and the premises are let out ior non-residential purpose. Hence, the provisions of S. 21 (1) of the Act would not be attracted to the facts ot the case. ( 10 ) 11 the lease deeds are held to constitute a composite lease, odviously, the rental exceeds Rs. 500- per month and the premises are let out ior non-residential purpose. Hence, the provisions of S. 21 (1) of the Act would not be attracted to the facts ot the case. If, on the other hand, the leasts are separate and distinct, the provisions of the Act would apply to the facts of the case as the rental stipulated in ex F-2 is Rs. 85 per month. ( 11 ) IN order to determine whether the leases form a composite lease or they are separate lease deeds, wo have to discover the real intention of the parties as revealed in the documents. We have to find out whether there is a dominant intention and the three lease deeds are taken with a view to carry out the dominant intention or whether they are separate and intended for different purposes. If the leases are taken for separate and distinct purpose, they cannot be considered as a composite lease. If, on the other hand, the purpose of the lease deeds are one and the same and they are governed by a dominant intention, they form a composite lease. ( 12 ) IN this connection, the learned judge of the City Civil Court has relied on the admission made by the defendant himself in the written statement among other things. In the written statement, it is stated thus in para-3 by the defendant:"it is true that certain additional areas were obtained on lease by defendant from plaintiff from time to time under specific registered documents. The said documents also speak ior themselves. The surrender of the portions was envisaged only for the puipose ot making it as the subject-mattei of a composite document. It is true that clause 15 in one of the registered documents contemplated a surrender of any excess soace which was iound to be in excess oi requirement ol what was necessary for parking area. "thus, it is admitted in para-3 of the written statement that the purpose of taking these documents was to make them a composite lease. ( 13 ) EVEN the purpose for which these leases were taken would clearly establish that they were taken for one and the same purpose and they form a composite lease. "thus, it is admitted in para-3 of the written statement that the purpose of taking these documents was to make them a composite lease. ( 13 ) EVEN the purpose for which these leases were taken would clearly establish that they were taken for one and the same purpose and they form a composite lease. First of all, some area was taken for building the theatre and, when permission was sought, the authorities insisted that there should be area for car parking and it was for that purpose that a second deed was taken to enable the theatre to be built with the appurtenant area for car parking. Thus, the purpose of the two deeds of lease is one and the same viz. , to build a theatre to run cinema shows. In order to enable the building of the theatre and to run cinema shows, it was necessary to have parking area and the other lease was taken for securing the parking area. Therefore, the Courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that though the leases were taken at different times, they were for one and the same purpose and they form a composite lease and not separate and distinct leases. ( 14 ) THE subsequent conduct of the parties also, as discussed by the learned judge of the City Civil Court, establishes that the lease was for the same purpose and the leases were composite in nature. 14. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Atyam Veeraju v. Pechetti venkanna, (1) has laid down in para-9 of the judgment thus: "where the tenancy is granted by an instrument in writing, the question whether the tenancy is permanent is a matter of construction, having regard to the terms of the deed and where the language of the deed is ambiguous, having regard also 10th object of the lease, the circumstances under which it was granted and the subsequent conduct of the parties, for an instance, see Sivayogeswara cotton Press, Divangere v. M. Panchaksharappa (A. I. R. 1962 S. C 413. ). 14. Thus, the Courts below were justified in drawing the inference relying on the purpose of the lease, the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parlies and in corning to the conclusion that the leases were composite and they were not separate and district though they were taken at different times. ). 14. Thus, the Courts below were justified in drawing the inference relying on the purpose of the lease, the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parlies and in corning to the conclusion that the leases were composite and they were not separate and district though they were taken at different times. I have no reason to differ. ( 15 ) IN the result, I am constrained to hold that the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and I dismiss the same. No costs in this appeal. --- *** --- .