Judgment : Heard both parties. 2. The above revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1997 in R.C.A.No.13 of 1997 before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and Principal Subordinate Judge. Nagapattinam reversing the judgment and decree dated 14. 1997 made in R.C.O.P.No.35 of 1995 before the Rent Controller cum District Munsif, Nagapattinam. 3. For the purpose of convenience, parties are described as per their rank in the suit. .4. The revision petitioner is the respondent in R.C.O.P. filed by the landlord respondent herein under Secs.10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii), Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. .5. The admitted facts of the case are stated as follows: .The property was leased out to the revision petitioner herein under agreement dated 2. 1995 for a monthly rent of Rs.40 per month. The said agreement dated 2. 1995 was executed on Rs.10 stamp paper. According to the landlord-respondent herein, tenant-revision petitioner was not paying the rent from 2. 1995 and therefore committed a default in payment of rent from 2. 1995 to 38. 1995. It is further contended by the respondent-landlord that the revision petitioner-tenant was using the petition building for different purpose. Hence, he filed the above R.C.O.P.No.35 of 1995. 6. In support of his contentions, respondent-landlord filed Exs.A-1 to A-4 namely the property tax receipt and the revision petitioner-tenant filed Exs.B-1 to B-4. 7.Per contra, revision petitioner-tenant contended that under agreement dated 2. 1995, only a vacant site was leased out but not a building. Under clause 10 of the said agreement, it was agreed that the revision petitioner-tenant shall not claim any benefit under City Tenants Protection Act and it is contended that no building was leased out to the petitioner under the said agreement dated 2. 1995. 8. The learned Rent Controller, in appreciation of the recitals under agreement dated 2. 1995 held that only a vacant site was leased out to the revision petitioner-tenant but not a building as contended by the respondent-landlord. Hence, dismissed the eviction petition by his order dated 14. 1997. 9. Aggrieved by which, the respondent-land lord, preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.13 of 1997 before the Rent Controll Authority, who by his judgment dated 30.9.1997 allowed the appeal reversing the judgment and decree dated 14. 1997 in R.C.O.P.No.35 of 1995 and held that under Ex.A-1 dated 2. Hence, dismissed the eviction petition by his order dated 14. 1997. 9. Aggrieved by which, the respondent-land lord, preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.13 of 1997 before the Rent Controll Authority, who by his judgment dated 30.9.1997 allowed the appeal reversing the judgment and decree dated 14. 1997 in R.C.O.P.No.35 of 1995 and held that under Ex.A-1 dated 2. 1995, the respondent landlord had leased out land and building but not the land alone and consequently allowed the R.C.A.No.13 of 1997 and ordered eviction against the revision petitioner-tenant. Hence the above revision. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-tenant invited my attention to the schedule of the property mentioned in the agreement dated 2. 1995, which reads as follows: 11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-tenant contends that the said schedule does not speak about any building being located in the schedule property and only for that reason the revision petitioner-tenant had agreed that he would not be entitled for City Tenants Protection Act. Therefore, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act is not applicable and the R.C.O.P. is liable to be dismissed. 12.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord invited my attention to the preamble recital of the agreement which reads as follows: 13. The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord also invited my attention to clause 5, wherein it is staled that the revision petitioner-tenant had agreed to use the schedule property to run his business in beedi and suruttu and not for any other purpose. 14. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 15. A harmonious reading of the above preamble recital of the agreement as well as clause 5 would clearly show that what was leased out was a land and building but not land alone, because even at the time of leasing out the property under agreement dated 2. 1995, the revision petitioner-tenant was prepared to live in the suit property and also to run his business, beedi and suruttu. I do not find any other clause in the agreement either enabling the revision petitioner-tenant to raise superstructure or the respondent-landlord giving permission to put superstructure in the land, nor there is any provision as to how the superstructure has to be dealt with by the parties in the the event of such termination of contract. I do not find any other clause in the agreement either enabling the revision petitioner-tenant to raise superstructure or the respondent-landlord giving permission to put superstructure in the land, nor there is any provision as to how the superstructure has to be dealt with by the parties in the the event of such termination of contract. Therefore, it is only land and superstructure that was leased out but not land alone as sought to be claimed by the revision petitioner-tenant based on the schedule property. When the property is described in the preamble portion, the mere silence as to the superstructure in the schedule shall not be a basis to conclude that what leased out was land alone but not with the building. Therefore, the learned appellate authority has rightly held that what was leased out under the agreement dated 2. 1995 was the land along with superstructure but not land alone and thus ordered eviction. 16. For all these reasons, I do not propose to interfere with the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1997 in R.C.A.No.13 of 1997 on the file of the learned Rent Control Authority. Hence, revision fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.