The appellant moved the Rent Controller to fix the rent payable by him under the lease in question in respect of the property demised to him under Section 9 1 of the Act.
The respondent then went in appeal to the District Judge at Bhopal and urged that the Rent Controlling Authority had numberjurisdiction to fix the rent between the parties and, on the merits, the rent fixed was unduly low.
This application was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the lease in question did number fall within the protection of the Act as the property demised to the appellant was number accommodation within the meaning of Section 3, and the rent payable by the appellant to the respondent was, therefore, number payable for any accommodation to which the Act applied.
XXIII of 1955 hereinafter called the Act .
B. Gajendragadkar, C.J. This appeal by special leave raises a short question as to whether the lease executed by the respondent, Sardar Mal Lalwani In favour of the appellant, Uttamchand, can be said to be a lease of an accommodation within the meaning of Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955 No.
