( 1 ) THE suit O. S. No. 2214 of 1989 filed by the respondent on the file of the Second Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the appellant M/s. Standard Cafe and Stores for recovery of possession and damages in respect of the premises bearing Nos. 7-1-95/1 and 2, situated at Ameerpet, Hyderabad, described in the schedule of the property consisting of a big hall including kitchen and cycle stand forming part of the premises clearly delineated in the rough sketch plan appended to the plaint in red colour was decreed by the Judgment and decree dated 6-8-1998 as prayed for, directing the appellant herein to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within three months from the date of Judgment. The defendant was also directed to pay damages to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month from 1-1-1989 till the date of delivery of possession for the use and occupation and also pay costs of Rs. 6,293/- to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the defendant filed this appeal. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company, having its registered office at the aforesaid premises and the defendant is a tenant in a portion of the aforesaid premises and carrying on restaurant business under the name and style of M/s. Standard Cafe and Stores, described in the schedule of the property (herein after referred to as schedule premises ). Monthly rent was increased from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 4,750/- in respect of the schedule premises and the tenancy is from 1st of the month to the end of the month as per English Calendar year and monthly rent is payable in the first week of the succeeding month. As the plaintiff requires the said premises and the request of the plaintiff demanding the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the same was not conceded and as the defendant failed to vacate the same, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 25-9-1989 and the same was received by the defendant on 28-9-1989. As per the said notice, the monthly tenancy was determined by the end of October, 1989 and called upon the defendant to vacate the schedule premises and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the same, but the defendant failed to vacate the same. Therefore, the defendant is treated as a trespasser and is liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month for the use and occupation from 1-11-1989. Though the defendant received the notice on 28-9-1989, he failed to vacate the schedule premises and he got issued a reply dated 19-10-1989, admitting the tenancy, but he denied the increase of rent from 400/- to Rs. 4,750/- to the schedule premises. According to the defendant, the amount of rent of Rs. 4,750/- includes the rent payable in respect of canteen, cycle stand, scooter and car parking areas, for which, the plaintiff appropriately gave reply on 24-10-1989 to the defendant denying the allegations. It is stated that no open area was let out for parking of cars and scooters. The open area let out for cycle stand is in between the generator room and booking office and is located adjoining toilets on western side of the schedule premises. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree directing the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises and pay damages at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month and also costs of the suit. ( 3 ) A written statement has been filed by the defendant stating that the defendant is a tenant and running M/s. Standard Cafe and Stores. It is incorrect to state that the monthly rent was increased from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 4,750/ -. The defendant obtained the premises for running the restaurant on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/ -. The premises is located within the compound wall of Sheeshmahal Theatre. Apart from running the restaurant, the defendant is also operating cycle stand, scooter and car parking within the theatre premises. The amount payable in respect of the place being used by the defendant for operating the parking is Rs. 4,350/- per month, thus the entire monthly rent payable to the plaintiff by the defendant is Rs. 4,750/ -. Apart from running the restaurant, the defendant is also operating cycle stand, scooter and car parking within the theatre premises. The amount payable in respect of the place being used by the defendant for operating the parking is Rs. 4,350/- per month, thus the entire monthly rent payable to the plaintiff by the defendant is Rs. 4,750/ -. The lease of the premises wherein the restaurant is being run is nothing to do with the lease of the premises wherein cycle stand, scooter and car parking is being operated and the two places are distinct and separate. It is stated that the premises leased out in respect of the restaurant is more than 10 years old and the rent payable is Rs. 400/- per month and therefore, the said premises is governed by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "rent Control Act") and the defendant being the statutory tenant, his tenancy cannot be terminated. It is stated that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The defendant filed an application in R. C. No. 133 of 1990 under Section 8 (5) of the Rent Control Act on the file of the II- Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad and the Rent Controller permitted the defendant to deposit the monthly rents without prejudice to the rights of the land lord. The contention of the plaintiff that there is no area in the premises for parking of cars and scooters and that the open space in the premises is used for the cinegoers and that a portion is used for parking the vehicles of staff and that no open area was let out to the defendant for parking of cars and scooters is denied. It is stated that without showing the place for parking of scooters and cars, no licence can be granted to run the theatre under the Cinematography Act. It is stated that the termination of the tenancy is illegal and as such, the defendant is not under any legal obligation to vacate the suit premises. The possession of the defendant over the schedule premises is legal and he is not liable to pay any damages to the plaintiff. It is stated that there are two tenancies, one in respect of the premises for running the restaurant and the other for operating the cycle stand, scooter and car parking. The possession of the defendant over the schedule premises is legal and he is not liable to pay any damages to the plaintiff. It is stated that there are two tenancies, one in respect of the premises for running the restaurant and the other for operating the cycle stand, scooter and car parking. Therefore, the said two tenancies are distinct and separate and both cannot be clubbed, but, the plaintiff clubbed both the premises to confer jurisdiction of the Civil Court for terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. , which cannot be terminated under law. ( 4 ) ON the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the rent is Rs. 4,750/- or Rs. 400/- per month as claimed by the plaintiff and defendant respectively? (2) Whether the termination of tenancy is valid or not? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession with damages? (4) Whether the Civil Court is having jurisdiction to try the suit? (5) To what relief. ( 5 ) THE director of the plaintiff by name Maheshchand is examined as Pw. 1 and Exs. A1 to A74 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. The proprietor of the defendant concern M/s. Standard Cafe and Stores is examined as Dw. 1 and the person who used to supply butter packets to the defendant cafe and used to stay opposite to the Hotel-Jagirdar Bada by name Syed Haseen Aga is examined as Dw. 2 and Exs. B1 to B34 were marked. Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides, the trial Court held on issue Nos. 1 and 4 that the rent paid by the defendant is Rs. 4,750/- and not Rs. 400/- as contended by the defendant and accordingly held that the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to try the suit. On issue Nos. 2 and 3, the trial Court held that the termination of tenancy is valid and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession together with damages claimed at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month with effect from November 1989, subject to payment of Court fee. Accordingly, the suit was decreed as prayed for. On issue Nos. 2 and 3, the trial Court held that the termination of tenancy is valid and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession together with damages claimed at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month with effect from November 1989, subject to payment of Court fee. Accordingly, the suit was decreed as prayed for. ( 6 ) THE questions that arise for consideration are: (1) whether there are two tenancies as contended by the defendant, one for the restaurant bearing premises No. 7-1-95/1 and the other for the open space, which is a portion of premises bearing No. 7-1-95/2, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, as both premises are situated within Seeshmahal theatre? (2) Whether there was separate rent fixed for the restaurant @ Rs. 400/- and @ Rs. 4,350/- for the open area leased out for the cycle stand, scooter and car parking as contended by the defendant? (3) Whether termination of tenancy is legal and valid? ( 7 ) IT is the specific case of the plaintiff (Pw. 1) that the defendant is the tenant and the premises was let out to M/s. Standard Cafe and Stores along with the portion of the place for cycle stand. The building premises and the open space were let out under one tenancy simultaneously to the father of the defendant in the year 1958 on a consolidated monthly rent of Rs. 400/ -. The said rent was increased on several spells to Rs. 600/-, Rs. 1,600/-, Rs. 2,500/-, Rs. 3,300/- and finally it was increased to Rs. 4,750/- per month long back. The defendant used to pay the rents in cash and thereafter on the demand of the plaintiff, the defendant started paying the rent by way of cheque or Demand Draft. The plaintiff issued a legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to the defendant on 25-9-1989, which was received by him on 28-9-1989. The suit premises was needed for the use of the plaintiff and therefore, the defendant was asked to vacate the same and the tenancy was terminated by the end of October, 1989. As the defendant failed to vacate the same, the suit was filed. The defendant gave reply notice dated 18-10-1989, for which a rejoinder was issued on 24-10-1989. The open space in the premises that was let out along with the canteen was only the parking place for cycles. As the defendant failed to vacate the same, the suit was filed. The defendant gave reply notice dated 18-10-1989, for which a rejoinder was issued on 24-10-1989. The open space in the premises that was let out along with the canteen was only the parking place for cycles. The contention of the defendant that he is paying rent separately for the canteen and the cycle stand is incorrect and only consolidated rent is being paid for the schedule premises at the rate of Rs. 4,750/- per month. Ex. A1 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 25-9-1989, Ex. A2 is the postal acknowledgement, Ex. A3 is the reply notice, Ex. A4 is the rejoinder, Ex. A5 is the postal acknowledgement, Ex. A6 is the rough sketch filed along with the plaint, Ex. A7 is the receipt book under which rent receipts were issued to the defendant showing the monthly rent of Rs. 4,750/ -. All the counter foils were signed by the defendant on their back side. Exs. A8 to A50 are the counter foils of the receipts. During the pendency of the suit, he issued the receipts. Ex. A51 to A74 are the office copies of the receipts issued by the plaintiff for the rent paid by the defendant. The defendant filed R. C. No. 133 of 1998 under Section 8 (5) of the Rent Control Act and Ex. B1 is the certified copy of the order in the above case. It is stated that there are two municipal numbers for the entire building and in premises bearing No. 7-1-95/1, canteen is situated and the premises bearing No. 7-1-95/2 is given for cinema theatre. Property tax is separately assessed for both the premises and the property tax in respect of premises bearing No. 7-1-95/1 where canteen alone situated is assessed based on the monthly rent of Rs. 400/- and the annual rental value is Rs. 4,800/ -. In the cross-examination, Pw. 1 stated that the letter head shown to the plaintiff dated 17-4-1989 does not contain his signature and the writings also are not of him and the case of the defendant that separate receipt for payment of the rent of Rs. 400/- for Standard Caf for the month of April, 1989 was denied. The said document was marked as Ex. B2. It is further stated by Pw. 400/- for Standard Caf for the month of April, 1989 was denied. The said document was marked as Ex. B2. It is further stated by Pw. 1 that separate receipts were never issued for the lease of the canteen and cycle stand and only consolidated receipt for the suit schedule premises was issued and there are no separate tenancies and only one tenancy was existing between the plaintiff and defendant and therefore, the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is legal and valid. ( 8 ) DW. 1 stated that his father originally took the premises bearing No. 7-1-95/1 on lease from Pw. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/ -. The premises of Cinema theatre is bearing Municipal No. 7-1-95/2. After the restaurant was started, cinema theatre was constructed. The restaurant place taken on lease is distinct and different from cinema theatre and adjacent place. As per the oral understanding, the defendant was given permission to collect amount from the owners of the vehicles and as per the oral arrangement, the defendant used to pay some amount to the plaintiff on monthly basis and the rent was enhanced from time to time and the present rent payable for the said parking place and to run the canteen in the theatre is Rs. 4,750/- per month. The plaintiff used to receive the rents for the premises and parking place and used to issue receipts separately. The plaintiff used to give single receipt for the rent paid by the defendant and the monthly rent of Standard Cafe is Rs. 400/ -. Ex. B2 is the rental receipt of Rs. 400/- for the month of April, 1989 for Standard Caf. Pw. 1 filed O. S. No. 5043 of 1993 on the file of the 5th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the Provident Fund Authorities stating that there are four employees working under him to run the canteen and cycle stand. The plaintiff used to pay provident fund for the employees working in the theatre and the defendant used to contribute his share for the workers engaged by him in the canteen and parking place. The Municipal Authorities separately assessed the property tax in respect of premises bearing No. 7-1-95/1. When the rent sent by the defendant at the rate of Rs. The Municipal Authorities separately assessed the property tax in respect of premises bearing No. 7-1-95/1. When the rent sent by the defendant at the rate of Rs. 400/- for the restaurant place for the month of November, 1989 was refused to be received by the landlord, the defendant filed R. C. No. 133 of 1990 on the file of the II-Additional Rent Controller and the said case was allowed permitting the tenant to deposit the rent and the Rent Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and the said orders are marked as Exs. B5 and B6. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the dispute. It is the case of the defendant that he is paying the rent separately for parking area as well as the canteen at the rate of Rs. 4,350/- and Rs. 400/- respectively to the plaintiff. ( 9 ) DW. 2 was examined on behalf of the defendant and he stated that there was no hotel in the year 1958 and the hotel was started three months prior to the opening of the theatre. The parking area is in the cinema theatre, which is under the control of defendant. The defendant is running a hotel and the parking area is under the control of the defendant. He does not know the total area lease out to the defendant and he also does not know the actual area let out for the parking, but he stated that the back side area was let out for parking. He do not know what was the exact date of commencement of cinema theatre and he do not know anything about the lease deed existing between the plaintiff and defendant. He stated that parking area was let out to the defendant. ( 10 ) IT is the contention of the defendant that the tenancy in respect of the Standard Caf and Stores is only relating to the premises bearing No. 7-1-95/1, which is covered by the Rent Control Act as the rent for the said premises was only Rs. He stated that parking area was let out to the defendant. ( 10 ) IT is the contention of the defendant that the tenancy in respect of the Standard Caf and Stores is only relating to the premises bearing No. 7-1-95/1, which is covered by the Rent Control Act as the rent for the said premises was only Rs. 400/- and separate municipal number was given for the theatre premises bearing premises No. 7-1-95/2 and as such, the parking area attached to the cinema theatre is different and distinct and therefore, both the leases cannot be clubbed together for the purpose of evicting the defendant as the tenancy for running Standard Caf bearing premises No. 7-1-95/1 is covered by the Rent Control Act and therefore, the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for eviction of the defendant from both the premises i. e. , from Canteen as well as the parking area is illegal and that the rent paid for the canteen and parking area are separate. ( 11 ) EX. A1 is the notice dated 25-9-1989 issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy by 31-10-1989 stating that M/s. Standard Caf and Stores, represented by its Proprietor Sri Mohd. Hussain Ashtaranian, 7-1-95/1, Ameerpet, Hyderabad is a tenant of the landlord, carrying on hotel business therein on monthly tenancy and the monthly rent is Rs. 4,750/- and the tenancy is terminated by the end of October, 1989 and if the defendant failed to vacate and handover the vacant and peaceful possession, he will be treated as a trespasser and damages at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month will be claimed for wrongful occupation and enjoyment of the premises. The defendant gave Ex. A3 reply dated 19-10-1989, stating that the amount of rent stated by the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 4,750/- mentioned in the notice includes the rent payable in respect of canteen, cycle stand, scooter and car parking areas and the rent in respect of the canteen is only Rs. 400/- and the canteen area is covered under the Rent Control Act and therefore, the question of terminating the tenancy does not arise; and the question of paying the damages also does not arise; for which a rejoinder under Ex. 400/- and the canteen area is covered under the Rent Control Act and therefore, the question of terminating the tenancy does not arise; and the question of paying the damages also does not arise; for which a rejoinder under Ex. A4 dated 24-10-1989 was issued, stating that no separate rent is paid for premises bearing No. 7-1-95/1 at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month and in fact, Rs. 400/- rent was increased from time to time and the present rent being paid is Rs. 4,750/- for the canteen and cycle stand. It is stated that what was leased out is the canteen and cycle stand and therefore, it is in correct to state that canteen area is covered under the Rent Control Act. Ex. A6 is the rough sketch plan, which goes to show that on the main road, two gates and passages are there to go to Sheeshmahal theatre and Standard Caf is situated abutting the cinema theatre area in between the gate and passage. On the back of Standard Caf, after generator room and lavatories, cycle stand is there and therefore, cycle stand is on the back side of the caf. ( 12 ) ADMITTEDLY, two municipal numbers were given to the entire premises. Premises No. 7-1-95/1 is given for Standard Caf and 7-1-95/2 is given for the entire theatre area. Obviously, there will not be any separate municipal number for the open space. Admittedly, there is no any written lease agreement. There is only an oral lease agreement. It is the case of the plaintiff that the premises were leased out under one lease in respect of Standard Caf and cycle stand at the time of opening of the cinema theatre and no separate leases are existing. It is the further case of the plaintiff that only one rent receipt is being issued for the entire premises in occupation of the tenant. Admittedly, the entire area comprising of cinema theatre, Standard Caf , cycle stand and booking room, situated in one compound. Merely because the description of the tenant is described as standard caf and stores represented by its proprietor Sri Mohd. Hussain, H. No. 7-1-95/1, ameerpet, Hyderabad, it cannot be said that he is not the tenant in respect of the open place, where the cycle stand is situated, which was also given to the tenant on lease. Merely because the description of the tenant is described as standard caf and stores represented by its proprietor Sri Mohd. Hussain, H. No. 7-1-95/1, ameerpet, Hyderabad, it cannot be said that he is not the tenant in respect of the open place, where the cycle stand is situated, which was also given to the tenant on lease. The lease in respect of Standard Caf and Cycle Stand is one and the same and there are no two separate lease deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the lease in respect of the cycle stand is different and distinct from that of the Standard Caf. It is stated that the defendant M/s. Standard Caf and Stores, represented by its Proprietor Sri Mohd. Hussain Ashtaranian, H. No. 7-1-95/1, Ameerpet, Hyderabad is the tenant of the plaintiff and the said tenancy was terminated by the end of October, 1989. The premises bearing No. 7-1-95/2 is given to the cinema theatre alone. Merely because, no separate municipal number is given to the cycle stand, it cannot be said that there are two tenancies in respect of the cycle stand, which is situated in between the theatre premises and restaurant premises. Therefore, it cannot be said that merely because a rejoinder has been filed stating that premises bearing No. 7-1-95/2 is relating to cinema theatre, it cannot be said that the open space where the cycle stand was leased out is not terminated. ( 13 ) IT is the case of the defendant that he is the tenant in respect of the premises bearing No. 7-1-95/1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- and the amount of the rent mentioned by the plaintiff amounting to Rs. 4,750/- which is inclusive of the canteen and cycle stand, scooter and car parking area and therefore, the tenancy in respect of the said premises cannot be terminated. As already stated, no separate municipal number was given to the cycle stand. In fact, the contention of the defendant that separate rent fixed for the cycle stand, scooter and car parking area was not at all proved and there was no car parking at all. What was leased out to the tenant was only the restaurant and cycle stand simultaneously under the oral lease and admittedly there was no written lease deed. In fact, the contention of the defendant that separate rent fixed for the cycle stand, scooter and car parking area was not at all proved and there was no car parking at all. What was leased out to the tenant was only the restaurant and cycle stand simultaneously under the oral lease and admittedly there was no written lease deed. The contention of the defendant that restaurant was opened much prior to the construction of cinema theatre was also not established and there was no any cogent or proper evidence to show that separate leases were granted. On the other hand, it is to be noted that every cinema theatre will have a canteen and cycle stand and it is for the owner of the theatre either to run the canteen and cycle stand by themselves or can be leased out to any tenant. It is the case of the landlord that the restaurant and the cycle stand was leased out on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- which was enhanced from time to time and there was one lease and rent receipt has been issued and therefore, there is no any ambiguity or doubt with regard to the one tenancy and single payment. ( 14 ) IN so far as the contention of the tenant that the premises bearing No. 7-1-95/1 is covered by the Rent Control Act and therefore, when the amount of Rs. 400/- sent by the tenant for the month of November 1989 was refused, he filed an application under Section 8 (5) of the Act in R. C. No. 133 of 1990 on the file of the II-Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. It is to be noted that after filing of the suit only, the said Rent Control Case was filed taking a plea that the rent in respect of Standard Caf is only Rs. 400/- and not Rs. 4,750/- as alleged by the landlord and that the tenant is not liable to pay the damages at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month from first November, 1989. 400/- and not Rs. 4,750/- as alleged by the landlord and that the tenant is not liable to pay the damages at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month from first November, 1989. The Rent Controller disposed of the said application, holding that if ultimately, the amount of the rent deposited by the tenant is found to be incorrect, the tenant will not be get any benefit out of his deposits and no harm will be caused to the landlord in the pending suit O. S. No. 2214 of 1989 seeking eviction of the tenant and therefore, the tenant was permitted to deposit the rent into the Court without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties in the suit filed by the plaintiff. It is specifically stated that the said application filed by the tenant was allowed without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff. ( 15 ) THE further contention of the tenant that the plaintiff filed O. S. No. 5040 of 1993 on the file of the Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Ex. B2 questioning the proceedings of the Provident Fund Commissioner, impleading the tenant as second defendant and when the second defendant defaulted in payment of provident fund. It is to be seen that the defendant used to pay the amount due for the establishment of canteen, Store and cycle stand under the provisions of the Provident Fund Act and the plaintiff is not concerned with the management of the canteen and cycle stand and Stores and for the persons employed for carrying on the canteen, stores and cycle stand, the defendant/tenant has to contribute the provident fund and merely because there was one account of payment of provident fund in respect of the cinema theatre, running of the canteen and cycle stand, it cannot be said that there was no one tenancy that was leased out to the defendant in respect of the canteen, stores and cycle stand. ( 16 ) THE defendant has relied on Ex. B2 as if the plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 400/- from M/s. Standard Case and Stores towards the rent of April, 1989. The trial Court carefully examined the said contention with reference to Ex. ( 16 ) THE defendant has relied on Ex. B2 as if the plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 400/- from M/s. Standard Case and Stores towards the rent of April, 1989. The trial Court carefully examined the said contention with reference to Ex. A46, which is the counter foil of the rent receipt signed by the defendant in respect of M/s. Standard Caf and Stores and the monthly rent for April, 1989 was Rs. 4,750/ -. The plaintiff disputed his signature on Ex. B2 and the defendant failed to prove that the said signature belong to the plaintiff only. The writings on Ex. B2 also do not belong to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant made an attempt to take an untenable plea that separate rent receipt was issued to the Standard Caf for the month of April, 1989. In view of the admitted receipt Ex. A46 that only one receipt was issued for the Standard Caf and Stores and cycle stand, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that there were no separate leases or no separate rent receipts and only one rent being paid in respect of the building in occupation of the tenant. The landlord filed the rent receipts for the rent received from the tenant from January, 1986 to August, 1989 and all the rent receipts contain the signature of the defendant, wherein he has admitted the rents paid by him and all the rent receipts goes to show that only one rent was paid in respect of the building in occupation of the tenant i. e. , M/s. Standard Caf and Stores and Cycle Stand. Merely because, the Municipality has separately assessed and assigned a separate number to the Standard Caf and Stores, it cannot be said that there are two separate leases and the tenant is having separate tenancy for the Standard Caf and Stores and Cycle Stand. Merely because, the Municipality has separately assessed and assigned a separate number to the Standard Caf and Stores, it cannot be said that there are two separate leases and the tenant is having separate tenancy for the Standard Caf and Stores and Cycle Stand. ( 17 ) UNDER Section 2 (vi) of the A. P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960, Landlord means; "the owner of a building and includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant". Thus, the definition of the landlord is very wide. Under Section 2 (iii) of the Act, Building means; "any house or hut or part of a house or hut, let out or to be let out separately for residential or non residential purposes and includes:- (a) the garden, grounds, garages and out-houses if any, appurtenant to such house, hut or part of such house or hut and let or to be let along with such house or hut or part of such house or hut". Thus, the building not only includes the house residential or non residential, but also includes the gardens, grounds, garages and out houses etc. Therefore, the meaning of the building also is not narrow, but wide, which includes the ground, garages appurtenant to such house. The definition of the tenant is also very wide, which means any person in respect of a building for which rent is payable. As already stated building means not only any residential or non residential house, but also includes the grounds, garages, out houses appurtenant to the said house etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that the canteen alone was leased out to the tenant to take shelter under the Rent Control Act. As already stated building means not only any residential or non residential house, but also includes the grounds, garages, out houses appurtenant to the said house etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that the canteen alone was leased out to the tenant to take shelter under the Rent Control Act. ( 18 ) WITH reference to the lease of the property in question, as per the definition of Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, lease means; transfer of a right to enjoy the immovable property for certain period express or implied, in consideration of a price paid or promised to the transferor by the transferee who accepts the transfer on such terms. The transferor is called the lessor and the transferee is called the lessee and the price is called the rent. Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, in the absence of a written contract of the lease of immovable property other than the agricultural land, shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by fifteen days notice. It is the specific case of the landlord that the property that was given on lease to the tenant is the immovable property consisting of Standard Caf and Stores and cycle stand. Municipal number was alone given to the Standard Caf and the termination notice was addressed to the said municipal number which was given to the Standard Caf and there is no specific material that goes to show that the ground was separately leased out and therefore, it cannot be said that termination of lease is only in respect of Standard Cafe and Stores and not in respect of cycle stand. ( 19 ) IN view of the afore said facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly considered that there was one lease and the rent payable is only one and the receipts issued by the tenant is also single for the lease of Standard Caf and Stores as well as the cycle stand. The termination of tenancy is legal and valid and the rental value prevailing in the area is much more than what was claimed towards damages for the use and occupation. Therefore, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in decreeing the suit as prayed for. The termination of tenancy is legal and valid and the rental value prevailing in the area is much more than what was claimed towards damages for the use and occupation. Therefore, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in decreeing the suit as prayed for. All the aforesaid questions are accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. ( 20 ) THE appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. However, the tenant/appellant is granted time up to 31st December, 2006 to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the schedule property to the respondent, subject to the condition that he shall continue to pay damages to the respondent and that the tenant shall also file an undertaking before the Court below within15 days from today that he will vacate and hand over vacant posse ssion of the schedule property as directed on or before 31st December, 2006.