Judgment – This appeal, preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05-03-1979, passed in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1977, by the then learned Civil Judge, Roorkee, whereby said appeal was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 22-08-1977, passed by Munsif, Haridwar, in Original Suit No. 271 of 1974, is affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent Saktoo Ram instituted Suit No. 271 of 1974 before the trial court for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and also for the ejectment of the defendant Manohar Lal Sharma (present appellant) from the plot, shown at the foot of the plaint, situated in village Ahmedpur Kadach, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Saharanpur (now District Haridwar). Plaintiff's case is that the defendant was his tenant in the property in suit on rent at the rate of Rs. 62.50 paise per month. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) are not applicable to the property in suit. It is alleged in the plaint that the tenancy of the defendant stood terminated w.e.f. 28-02-1974, in terms of the rent note executed between the parties. When the defendant did not vacate the plot in suit, even after being served with the notice, claiming mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 101- per day, plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant. 4. Defendant (appellant) contested the suit before the trial court and filed the written statement in which it is alleged by him that in the plot in suit there exists a room which was also in the tenancy of the defendant. It is also alleged by him that a weighbridge is also situated over the land in suit. As such, the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, are applicable to it. Regarding the notice given by the plaintiff, it is alleged in the written statement that the same is illegal and tenancy does not stand terminated. It is also alleged by him that a weighbridge is also situated over the land in suit. As such, the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, are applicable to it. Regarding the notice given by the plaintiff, it is alleged in the written statement that the same is illegal and tenancy does not stand terminated. However, it is further pleaded in the written statement that a room was constructed by the defendant with the consent of the landlord, which was a permanent structure, as such, the defendant is entitled to benefit of Section 29-A of the U .P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and he cannot be evicted from the property in suit. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues are framed, by the trial court : 1. Whether the provisions of the UP. Act No. 13 of 1 972 are applicable to the properly in suft? 2. Whether the notice through which the tenancy had been terminated is illegal? 3. Whether the defendant is tenant of the plot only? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages at the rate of Rs. 10/- per day for the use and occupation of the property, from defendant, as claimed by him ? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief, as prayed by him? 6. Whether the provisions of Section 29-A of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable to the property in suit? 7. In case, the said provisions are applicable, what is the enhanced rent of the property, in suft? 6. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the trial court found that the provisions of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the property in suit, as no construction has been raised by the defendant over the land in suit with permission of the landlord. The trial court did not find any illegality in the notice served on the defendant by the plaintiff. The suit was decreed for ejectment and also for the mesne profits vide judgment and decree dated 22-08-1977, by Munsif, Haridwar, passed in Original Suit No. 271 of 1974. The trial court did not find any illegality in the notice served on the defendant by the plaintiff. The suit was decreed for ejectment and also for the mesne profits vide judgment and decree dated 22-08-1977, by Munsif, Haridwar, passed in Original Suit No. 271 of 1974. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1977 was filed before the lower appellate court, which was heard and decided by learned Civil Judge, Roorkee, vide its impugned judgment and order dated 05-03-1979, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Hence, this Second Appeal was filed by the defendant before the Allahabad High Court on 28-03-1979, where it was admitted on following substantial question of law: Whether the construction in the premises in suit constitute a 'building'? The appeal is received by way of transfer to this Court from the Allahabad High Court, under Section 35 of the UP. Re-organization Act, 2000, for its disposal. 7. Following is the additional substantial question of law involved in this Appeal, on which learned counsel for the parties addressed the Court, at length: Whether, protection under Section 29-A of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, is available to the defendant/appellant? Answer to both the substantial Questions of law: 8. Property mentioned at the foot of the plaint suggests that the property in suit is a plot. It is admitted between the parties that the plaintiff Saktoo Ram was the landlord and defendant Manohar Lal Sharma was his tenant. The dispute between the parties is two fold: (1) Whether, a room and the weighbridge over the plot in suit constitutes a building, within the meaning of Section 3(i) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and, (2) Whether, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of Section 29-A of the U .P. Act No. 13 of 1972, as pleaded by him? Fortunately, there is a rent note executed between the parties, in respect of the plot in suit, which is paper No. 18-A, proved on the record. Fortunately, there is a rent note executed between the parties, in respect of the plot in suit, which is paper No. 18-A, proved on the record. This deed which is signed by both the parties namely Manohar Lal Sharma (tenant) and Saktoo Ram (landlord) clearly shows that a PLOT measuring 60 feet in the East; 60 feet in the West; 50 feet in the North and 64 feet in the South, situated in Village Ahmedpur Kadach, with the boundaries shown in the Note was let out to the defendant for eleven months from 01-04-1973 to 28-02-1974 on rent at the rate of Rs. 62.50 paise, per month. Subsequent rent note further shows that the defendant has installed a weigh bridge and a temporary room of sheets of cement within an area of 10 feet x 12 feet. Perusal of this Note along with oral evidence on record makes it clear that what is let out to the defendant is the plot. I agree with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the room over the plot is a roofed structure and, as such, is a building for the purposes of Section 3(i) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In the opinion of this Court, to examine whether tile property let out is a building or simply a land, it is to been seen whether, the land was let out with a small room over it or the room is let out with land appurtenant thereto. The rent note on record, executed between the parties, establishes on the record that it was a plot which was let out over which the tenant had constructed a temporary room. As such, it cannot be said that the building let out by the landlord with appurtenant land thereto. In such cases the constructions which were made over the land in suit cannot be considered to be a building for the purposes of Section 3(i) of the UP. Act No. 13 of 1972. This view gets support from what has been held by the Allahabad High Court in Ram Kumar Vs. Baboo Ram Gupta; reported in 1975 Allahabad Law Reports 414. Act No. 13 of 1972. This view gets support from what has been held by the Allahabad High Court in Ram Kumar Vs. Baboo Ram Gupta; reported in 1975 Allahabad Law Reports 414. In such kind of lease of plot, on evection, the tenant has always got a right to remove the building material of temporary room constructed by him over the land under tenancy. Having gone through the impugned judgment and orders and also the evidence on record, this Court is of the firm opinion that what is let out by the plaintiff was a plot and not building. As such, the first substantial question of law formulated by the Allahabad High Court, stands answered. 10. Now, I come to the second additional substantial question of law, on which the parties addressed this Court, at length, as to whether the protection under Section 29-A of the U .P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is available to the tenant (present appellant), or not? Before further discussion, it is pertinent to mention here, the provisions contained in Section 29-A of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The same is reproduced hereunder: "29-A. Protection against eviction to certain classes of tenants of land on which building exists. – (1) For the purposes of this section, the expression tenant' and 'landlord' shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clauses (a) and UJ of Section 3 with the substitution of the word 'land' for the word 'buildings '. ' (2) This section applies only to land let out, either before or after the commencement of this section, where the tenant, with the landlord's consent has erected any permanent structure and incurred expenses in execution thereof. (3) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained in this section, the provisions of Section 20 shall apply in relation to any land referred to in sub-section (2) as they apply in relation to any building. (4) The tenant of any land to which this section applies shall be liable to pay to the landlord such rent as may be mutually agreed upon between the parties, and in the absence of agreement, the rent determined in accordance with sub-section (5). (4) The tenant of any land to which this section applies shall be liable to pay to the landlord such rent as may be mutually agreed upon between the parties, and in the absence of agreement, the rent determined in accordance with sub-section (5). (5) The District Magistrate shall on the application of the landlord or the tenant determine the annual rent payable in respect of such land at the rate of ten per cent per annum of the prevailing market value of the land, and such rent shall be payable, except as provided in subsection (6) from the date of expiration of the term for which the land was let or from the commencement of this section, whichever is later. (6) (a) In any suit or appeal or other proceeding pending immediately before the date of commencement of this section, no decree for eviction of a tenant from any land to which this section applies, shall be passed or executed except on one or more of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 20, provided the tenant, within a period of three months from the commencement of this section by an application to the Court, unconditionally offers to pay to the landlord, the enhanced rent of the land for the entire period in suit and onwards at the rate of ten per cent per annum of the prevailing market value of the land together with costs of the suit (including costs of any appeal or of any execution or other proceedings). (b) In every such case, the enhanced rent shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), be determined by the Court seized of the case at any stage. (c) Upon payment against a receipt duly signed by the plaintiff or decree holder or his counselor deposit in Court of such enhanced rent with costs as aforesaid being made by the tenant within such time as the Court may fix in this behalf, the Court shall dismiss the suit, or, as the case may be, discharge the decree for eviction, and the tenancy thereafter, shall continue annually on the basis of rent so enhanced. (d) If the tenant fails to pay the said amount within the time so fixed (including any extended time, if any, that the Court may fix or for sufficient cause allow) the Court shall proceed further in the case as if the forgoing provisions of this section were not in force. (7) The provision of this section shall have effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any contract or instrument or in any other law for the time being in force. Explanation. - For the purposes of sub-section (6) where a case has been decided against a tenant by one court and the limitation for an appeal there from has not expired on the date immediately before the commencement of this section, this section shall apply as it applies to pending proceedings, and the tenant may apply to that Court for a revjew of the judgment in accordance with the provisions of this section." From the above quoted provision it is clear that for application of Section 29-A of the aforesaid Act, it is necessary that the land was let out to the tenant and in such land with the landlord's permission, the tenant had constructed permanent structure and incurred expenses over it. It further requires that in a pending case on 05-07-1976 i.e. the date when U.P. Act 28 of 1976, whereby Section 29-A was inserted in the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the tenant must move an application making an offer that he is ready to pay the enhanced rent for the entire period of suit and the onwards rate of ten per cent per annum of the prevailing market rate of the land together with the costs of the suit. 11. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant drew attention of this Court to the application moved before the trial court, within three months, in which the offer was made by the tenant to pay enhanced rent, but the learned counsel for the appellant could not show me, if apart from enhanced rent the offer was made to pay ten per cent of the market value of the land together with the costs of the suit. Unless, the conditions mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (6) of Section 29-Aofthe U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, are complied with it cannot be said that the defendant (appellant is protected under Section 29-A of the aforesaid Act, from the decree of eviction. Apart from this, assuming for a moment, that the conditions mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (6) of aforesaid Section was complied with, still, in the present case, tenant is not protected from eviction, as for the applicability of Section 29-A of the U .P. Act No. 13 of 1972, it is necessary that the construction raised by the tenant must be 'permanent' structure. Paragraph NO.1 of the subsequent rent note dated 17-02-1974, executed between the parties, which is on the record of the trial court, clearly shows that the tenant Manohar Lal Sharma (present appellant) has admitted that the construction made by him in the plot let out to him is 'temporary' construction of one room made of sheets of cement in a small area of 10 feet x 12 feet. As such, since, it is a document signed by the appellant himself, which shows that the construction in the disputed land was temporary in nature, therefore, the same cannot be said to be permanent. For that reason all the conditions required under sub-section (2) of Section 29-A of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, are not fulfilled, and therefore, the courts below have rightly decreed the suit for eviction. Accordingly, the additional substantial question of law also stands answered, in favour of the respondent. 12. For the reasons as discussed above, this appeal has no force, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is allowed two months time t6 vacate the plot and handover the same to the plaintiff / respondent, failing which the plaintiff / respondent will be at liberty to get executed the decree passed by the trial court. The tenant may remove and take away the building material of his temporary constructions. No order as to the cost of the appeal.