Judgment :- 1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the respondent for eviction and a decree for possession. The suit relates to two different items of properties. Item 1 is a vacant site. Item 2 is land and building where the defendant is carrying on business. These two items of properties originally belonged to one Thirukamani Chettiar. The defendant was a tenant under him as per a lease deed dated 2nd January, 1968. The plaintiff purchased the properties under a sale deed, dated 31st October, 1968. The lease expired on 1st January, 1978. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a notice terminating the tenancy and filed this suit for eviction and recovery of possession. The defendant raised a number of pleas including a right under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. He also claimed that the suit is not maintainable, in view of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and that only the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to evict him. The claim of benefits under the T amil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act has been rejected and there is no appeal regarding the same. ‘Both the courts below have rejected the defence of the defendant that the suit is not maintainable and held that since these two items of properties leased are different, one is a vacant site and the other is a building, the Rent Controller will have no jurisdiction relating to the same and that therefore, the civil Court had jurisdiction and in that view the suit was decreed on merits. 2. The only question therefore for consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Rent Control Act will be applicable and that the civil court had no jurisdiction. The finding of both the Courts below is that the first item is not appurtenant to the second item and they are two independent items. In fact, the lease deed also states as item 1 and item 2 and describes the property, separately. Even the Commissioner does not say that item 1 vacant property is appurtenant to item 2. Therefore, item 1 could not be treated as building in any sense of the term. In fact, the lease deed also states as item 1 and item 2 and describes the property, separately. Even the Commissioner does not say that item 1 vacant property is appurtenant to item 2. Therefore, item 1 could not be treated as building in any sense of the term. The building is defined in Sec. 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act as including the garden, grounds and out-houses if any, appurtenant to such building and let along with such building. In this case, on the finding that item 1 is not appurtenant to item 2, it could not be treated as building itself within the meaning of the term under the Act. The jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is only with reference to the building which has been leased to the tenant. Therefore, if the plaintiff had to approach the Rent Controller, he could only ask for an eviction in respect of item 2 alone and not in respect of item 1. It may be noted that the lease is one relating to both these items fixing a rent of Rs. 1100 per month. The parties themselves have not apportioned the rent payable in respect of these two items separately. In the circumstances, therefore, it would not be possible to contend that the Rent Controller would have any jurisdiction to evict the tenant from item 1 while ordering eviction in regard to item 2. The civil Court alone will have jurisdiction in respect of item 1. Since the lease is one and entire, it is not possible to direct the landlord to file one petition before the Rent Controller for eviction from one item of property and direct him to file a suit in respect of the other item of property. Though this lease could not be technically called a composite lease in the sense that the lease properties are for both residential and non-residential purposes, since it is a lease of a building and another item which is not a building, it should be taken that the civil Court alone will have jurisdiction to deal with this case. Accordingly, I am of opinion that the suit was properly laid. The civil Court had jurisdiction. Since there has been a termination of the tenancy and the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of statutory protection, the eviction order has to be confirmed. Accordingly, I am of opinion that the suit was properly laid. The civil Court had jurisdiction. Since there has been a termination of the tenancy and the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of statutory protection, the eviction order has to be confirmed. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. But, there will be no order as to costs.