Judgment 1. This civil revision by the defendant is directed against the order dated 14.5.99 in Title suit No. 26/94 dismissing his objection as to maintainability of the suit. 2. The suit has been filed for eviction on the ground of expiry of period of tenancy in terms of Section 11(1) (e) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short the BBC Act). The objection of the petitioner is two-fold. Firstly it is said that as the subject-matter of the lease is a vacant piece of land, the provisions of the BBC Act are not applicable, and secondly, in any view, the special procedure laid down under section 14 of the said Act would not apply. In support of the plea that the subject matter of the land is a vacant piece of land, Shri Sidheshwari Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner placed frontal reliance on the description of the premises as mentioned in the schedule to the lease deed. Shri Chittaranjan Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, referred to the recitals of the deed in support of his contention that what was leased out and the subject-matter of the lease, is building and not any vacant land. At this stage it would be useful to refer to the description of the premises as mentioned in the schedule and then to refer to the relevant recitals of the deed as under: "Description of the lease-hold premises: In Deoghar Town within ward no.2, a portion of holding no.152 apparently a vacant piece of land measuring about in length 48 feet and in which (sicwidth ?) 38 feet, with brick pillars and unfinished, unplastered one wall towards North of the height of about seven feet only bounded as follows:- .................." "1. The lessor hereby lets out the said premises fully described below in schedule "A" for a period of twenty years commencing from the date of registration of this Deed of Lease at a monthly rental of Rs.275/- payable by the Lessee unto the Lessor, after adjustment as specified clearly hereafter. 2. The Lessee hereby takes the same on rental aforesaid, which he shall pay in the first week of the succeeding month for which the rent falls due after adjusting the same in the manner set in here below. 3. 2. The Lessee hereby takes the same on rental aforesaid, which he shall pay in the first week of the succeeding month for which the rent falls due after adjusting the same in the manner set in here below. 3. That on and from the date of tenancy and within a reasonable time, the Lessee, which the Lessor hereby permits shall build/construct pucca double storied building for Lessees own business and residence purposes according to his own choice, suitability and convenience after obtaining necessary sanction from Municipality afresh after submitting plan and petition duly signed by the Lessor, and in such construction the Lessee shall extend spend and invest all that the amount actually needed for such construction subject to a maximum of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) only which investment actually made subject to a maximum of Rs. 25,000/- shall be deemed to be rent paid in advance to the Lessor by the Lessee. The tenancy shall commence and shall be deemed to commence on and from the date of registration of the Lease, but the monthly rent as aforesaid shall be payable after adjustment set in and specified below on and from the first day of November 1974, which rent and all successive rents shall be paid as aforesaid by the first week of the succeeding month for which the rent falls due." 3. It is clear from the above that the lessee i.e. defendant took the premises on lease on payment of monthly rental of Rs. 275/- payable in the manner stated in paragraph 3. As per the recitals of paragraph-3 the lessor i.e. the plaintiff permitted the lessee to build pucca double storied house at his own expenses subject to ceiling of Rs. 25,000/- which amount was to be treated as rent paid in advance to the lessor @ Rs. 275/- per month as provided in preceding paragraph, it would thus, appear that the subject-matter of the lease really was building which the parties agreed, would be constructed by the lessee at his own expenses and the cost or expenses was to be treated as rent. In other words, rent @ Rs. 275/- was for the building and not for the vacant land. In other words, rent @ Rs. 275/- was for the building and not for the vacant land. Rent being the consideration or the price paid or promised, under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, it must be held to be inextricable part of the grant of lease, and since that is referable to a building, the lease must be held to be with respect to the building. Thus, it is not a simple, case of lease of vacant land on payment of rent for use of that vacant land. The rental being payable in respect of the building which was later constructed as per the terms of the lease, I do not think, it can be called a vacant land so as to stand out of the definition of building in Section 2(b) of the BBC Act. 4. In support of the contention that the BBC Act is not applicable to vacant piece of land, reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on a decision in M/s. Ashok Chitra Private Ltd. vs. State of Bihar,1993{1) PLJR 24, but in view of what has been stated above, the decision has no relevance. 5. As regards the second plea regarding maintainability of the suit under Section 14 of the BBC Act, it is plain from a bare reading of that Section that where the suit is filed on the ground of expiry of period of tenancy, the same has to be tried in accordance with the special procedure laid down therein. Thus, once the BBC Act is held to be applicable, it would follow that Section 14 is also applicable. The plea regarding the maintainability of the suit thus has no merit which is accordingly rejected. In fairness to the opposite party, I must mention that although the suit was filed in the year 1994 and the defendant filed written statement in 1995 and participated in the proceedings thereafter, after five years in 1999 the plea regarding maintainability has been taken. The submission of the Counsel for the opp.party was that the plea has been taken only to unnecessarily delay the disposal of the suit which is required to be decided within a time-frame. I find force in the submission of the Counsel. In the above premises, I do not find any merit in this civil revision, which is accordingly dismissed.