Judgment – By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners (plaintiffs) have challenged the judgment and decree dated 28-11-1979, passed by Judge Small Causes Court (Civil Judge), Nainital, in S.C.C. Suit No. 31 of 1976, whereby said suit is decreed for arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendant (respondent no. 3) from the four quarters (excluding tin-shed over land appurtenant thereto), situated in Block NO.1 of Refugee Indra Colony, Kashipur. However, the suit is dismissed by the said court for rest of the prayers. The petitioners have also challenged the judgment and order dated 15-10-1982, passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital, whereby said Court has dismissed S.C.C. Revision No.5 of 1980, and the decree of the trial court is affirmed. (Kashipur was earlier part of the District, Nainital). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs (present petitioners) instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 31 of 1976, against respondent no. 3, Cooperative Land Settlement Development Union, Kashipur, for their ejectment from the four quarters situated in Block No.1 (Indra Colony) and also from the tin-shed erected over the land appurtenant to said quarters. The plaintiffs also prayed for recovery of arrears of rent amounting Rs. 1584/- and also for the mesne profits. The quarters in suit appear to have been transferred to the plaintiffs by the Government vide letter dated 02-11-1955, and by virtue of said transfer the plaintiffs became landlord of the defendant, who was occupant became tenant in the four quarters on rent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month. It is pleaded by the plaintiffs that defendant unauthorizedly raised tin-shed over the land appurtenant to the quarters and also committed default in payment of rent w.eJ. 01-04-1971. As such, suit was filed by the plaintiffs under Section 15 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act" 1887 (as amended by State of Uttar Pradesh) read with U .P. Urban Buldings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, after termination of tenancy of the defendant. 4. Defendant (respondent no. 01-04-1971. As such, suit was filed by the plaintiffs under Section 15 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act" 1887 (as amended by State of Uttar Pradesh) read with U .P. Urban Buldings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, after termination of tenancy of the defendant. 4. Defendant (respondent no. 3) contested the suit and filed its written statement before the trial court in which it is alleged that land adjoining with the quarters under tenancy, has no connection with the quarters, and the disputed tin-shed was constructed by the defendant over the land with regard to which there was no tenancy. However, it is not disputed that vide letter dated 0211-1955, the District Relief and Rehabilitation Officer on behalf of the Government transferred the quarters to the plaintiffs and the defendant became their tenant over the quarters from 01-11-1955 on rent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month, but rest of the contents of the plaint are denied. 5. Learned Judge Small Causes Court (trial court) gave a finding that the tin-shed in Question is not the part of the quarters in which the defendant was tenant of the plaintiffs. However rest of the case of the plaintiffs, after recording evidence of the parties and hearing them, found to be true by the trial court, which decreed the suit for ejectment of defendant from the quarters and also for the arrears of recovery of rent and mesne profits. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree dated 28-11-1979, passed by the trial court (J.S.C.C./Civil Judge, Nainital) a S.C.C. Revision No.5 of 1980, was filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, by the plaintiffs as their suit was dismissed in respect of the tin-shed built by the defendant over land adjoining to the quarters. After hearing the parties the Revisionsl Court (1st Additional District Judge, Nainital), dismissed the revision vide its judgment and order dated 15-10-1982. Hence this writ petition was filed by the plaintiffs before Allahabad High Court on 14-02-1983, where it is admitted on 22-03-1983. The writ petition is received by this Court under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, for its disposal. 6. Hence this writ petition was filed by the plaintiffs before Allahabad High Court on 14-02-1983, where it is admitted on 22-03-1983. The writ petition is received by this Court under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, for its disposal. 6. The impugned judgment and orders passed by Judge Small Causes Court/Civil Judge, Nainital, and that of the Revisional Court are challenged by the petitioners on the ground that both the courts below have erred in law in holding that the land appurtenant to the quarters under tenancy was not part of the quarters. It is further alleged in the writ petition by the petitioners that there is no separate document entitling possession of the tin-shed by the respondent no. 3 nor is there any agreement whereby separate possession of the land was given to the defendant. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3, it is alleged that Cooperative Land Settlement Development Union, Kashipur, has merged and is now known as Kashipur Sahkari Kraya Vikray Samiti Limited. It is admitted in Para 3 of the counter affidavit that petitioners are landlord of the building known as Block No.1 (Indra Colony, Kashipur), but it is alleged that the tin-shed in question is not part of the quarters in respect of which decree was passed against the defendant for their ejectment by the trial court, (and affirmed by the Revisional Court). It is stated by defendant/respondent no. 3 that vide letter dated 02-11-1955, which was issued by Settlement Officer, Bareilly to the petitioners only the quarters were transferred to them and as such they cannot treat on its basis the defendant as their tenant over the land adjoining the quarters on which the tin-shed is erected. Defending the dismissal of the suit in respect of the land on which the disputed tin-shed is erected, it is alleged by respondent no. 3 (defendant) that the plaintiffs (petitioners) have failed to show relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of the land over which the tin-shed is erected. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to Clause (i) of Section 3 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as UP. 3 (defendant) that the plaintiffs (petitioners) have failed to show relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of the land over which the tin-shed is erected. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to Clause (i) of Section 3 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as UP. Act No. 13 of 1972), which defines word 'building' as under: "building", means a residential or non-residential roofed structure and includes (i) any land (including any garden), garages and out-houses, appurtenant to such building; (ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building; (iii) any fittings and fixtures affixed to such building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof; Annexure 2 to the writ petition is the copy of the map of the refugee quarters pertaining to quarters in suit and the land appurtenant thereto which does indicate that the disputed land is part of the quarters of which defendant was lessee. The said fact is also clear from Annexure 1 to the writ petition, which shows the area of quarters no. 1 to 4 separately. The most important document on record of the courts below by which the relationship of landlord and tenant is created is Ext. 6 Le. letter dated 02-11-1955, issued by Sri S.S. Vishan, Settlement Officer, Bareilly, addressed to the petitioners contents of which read as under: "Government built quarters no. 1 to 8, block no. 1 and 2 at Refugee Colony, Kashipur, District Nainital, are transferred to you jointly on quasi permanent basis against your verified claim nos. PIRP518788C for Rs. 1,49,5001- and Rs. 4,2061- respectively. These quarters are at present occupied by the following persons w.e.f. 01-11-1955 they will hold the quarters as your tenants and will pay Rs. 101- per month as its rent for each quarter. The quarter will be transferred to you permanently later on after receiving orders from the Regional Settlement Commissioner, UP., Lucknow." 9. It appears that the petitioners, refugees from West Pakistan who were given the quarters as mentioned in the aforesaid letter. Though D.W. 1 Hariom Yadav, Secretary of the defendant/respondent no. 3 Union has stated before the trial court that the tin-shed belongs to the State, but he admits that the tin-shed is appurtenant to the main building of Block No.1. It appears that the petitioners, refugees from West Pakistan who were given the quarters as mentioned in the aforesaid letter. Though D.W. 1 Hariom Yadav, Secretary of the defendant/respondent no. 3 Union has stated before the trial court that the tin-shed belongs to the State, but he admits that the tin-shed is appurtenant to the main building of Block No.1. However, both the courts below have dismissed the suit in respect of the land over which tin-shed in question is erected on the ground that said tin-shed was already existing when the quarters were transferred to the petitioners and no separate tenancy was created in respect of tin-shed. Having gone through the papers on record and keeping in view the definition of 'building' contained in Clause (i) of Section 3 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, this Court is of the view that both the courts below have erred in law in not treating the land appurtenant to the quarters as the part of the quarters under tenancy of the defendant merely for the reason that on the date when quarters were transferred by the Government to the petitioners it is not mentioned that the land adjoining the quarters over which disputed tin-shed is erected is' also transferred to the petitioners does not mean that no land stood transferred to the petitioners except the quarters. It is not a case of multi-storied building or that of apartments. Single storied quarters are transferred to the petitioners by the Government where by it is declared that the occupants on behalf of the Government would be treated to be tenants of the transferee. The land appurtenant to the quarters, which is part and parcel of the quarters should not have been excluded by the courts below in decreeing the suit, particularly when the defendant (tenant) could not show how they happen to occupy the land appurtenant to the quarters. From the evidence on record, it appears that the tin-shed was erected prior to the letter dated 02-11-1955, but defendant could raise tin-shed only because they were tenant in the quarters no. 1-4 and by that capacity they were occupying the land appurtenant thereto. 10. Sri Shobhit Sahria, learned counsel for the defendant/respondent no. From the evidence on record, it appears that the tin-shed was erected prior to the letter dated 02-11-1955, but defendant could raise tin-shed only because they were tenant in the quarters no. 1-4 and by that capacity they were occupying the land appurtenant thereto. 10. Sri Shobhit Sahria, learned counsel for the defendant/respondent no. 3 argued that this Court in its exercise and writ jurisdiction cannot disturb the finding of fact recorded by the trial court, particularly when it is affirmed by the Revisional Court. Had it been only a case of appreciation of evidence, this Court would not have liked to interfere with any finding of fact. But in the present case, it is a question of interpreting the meaning of word 'building' as contained in Clause (i) of Section 3 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and to come to the conclusion whether the appurtenant land of the quarters in which defendant was admittedly a tenant is part of said tenancy or not. In the opinion of this Court, both the courts below have erred in law in treating the land appurtenant to the quarters, as separate from the quarters. From no stretch of imagination can it be said in a single storied quarters only a construction part is transferred to the petitioners by the Government and not the land beneath it. Once that be the position the land which is appurtenant to the quarters meant exclusively for the use of the quarters is part of said quarter and view taken by the courts below is contrary to it cannot be upheld. 11. For the reasons, as discussed above, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Judge Small Causes Courts/Civil Judge, Nainital, partly dismissing Suit No. 31 of 1976, in respect of tin-shed adjoining to the quarters for which the suit is decreed, is set aside. The Revisional Court's order affirming said dismissal is also quashed. The suit shall stand decreed also in respect of the tin-shed in question as a part of the quarters for which the suit is decreed by the trial court. However, in the interest of justice, defendant (present respondent no.3) is allowed three months time to vacate the premises and to handover the possession to the petitioners, failing which they shall be at liberty to get the decree executed in respect of the disputed tin-shed also.