accoodation. which is th subject-matter of tenancy. The question A hus 1s : what 1s the sense m which the word 'building' is used when t ccurs for the second im i t? Explanation. The context clearly md1cates that the word bmldmg 1s there used to denote a unit of whic _the accom.odation under . tenancy constitutes a part and' the remammg part 1s m the occupation of the landlord for residential urpses. The acc?mmodation under tenancy and the accommodation m the occupat10n of the landlord together go ·to make up the B 'building'. The use of the word 'part' is a clear pointer that the 'building'., o which the ac~ommodation under tenancy and the accommodat10n m the occupat10n of the landlord are parts, must be a unit. Where a super-structure consists of two or more tenements and each· tenement is an independent unit distinct and separate from the other, the Explanation would be of no application, because each tenement would be a unit and not part of a unit. It is only where there is a · c unit of accommodation out of which a part is under tenancy and the remaining part is in the occupation of the landlord, that the Explanation, would be attracted. To determine the applicability of the Explanation, the question to be asked would be whether the accommodation under tenancy and the accommodation in the occupation of the \ landlord together constitute one unit of accommodation? The object of the Legislature clearly was that where there is a single unit of D accommodation, of which a part has been let out to a tenant, the landlord who is in occupation of the remaining part should be entitled to recover possession of the part let out to the tenant. It could never have been intended by the Legislature that where a super-structure consists of two independent and separate units of accommodation one of which is let out to a tenant and the other is in the occupation of the landlord, E the landlord should, without any proof of bona fide requirement, be entitled to recover possession of the tenement let out to the tenant. It is difficult to see what social object or purpose the legislation could have had in view in conferring such a right on the landlord. Such a provision would be plainly contrary to the aim and objeciive of the legislation. On the other hand, if we read the Explanation to be applicable only to those cases where a single unit of accommodation is F divided by letting out a part to a tenant so that the landlord, who is in occupation of the remaining part, is given the right to evict the tenant and secure for himself possession of the whole unit, it would not unduly restrict or narrow down the protection against eviction afforded _,.....,. to the tenant. This construction would be more consistent with the policy and intendment of the legislation which is to protect the possession of the tenant, unless the landlord establishes his bona fide requireG ment of the accommodation under tenancy. We may point out that Mr. Justice Bari Swamp has also taken the. same view in a wellconsidered judgment in Chunnoo Lal v. Addi. District Judge, Allahabad(') and that decision has our approval.
