R. N. Prasad, J.

The appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 8.1.1993 passed by 2nd Addl. Dist. Judge, Sitamahrhi in Title Appeal No. 50/25 of 1990-92 affirming the Judgment and decree dated 28.8.1990 passed by Munsif. Sitawarhi (West) in Title Suit No. 9/89.

2. The plaintiffs respondents filed a suit against the defendant-appellant for eviction stating there in that they had constructed a Cinema Hall named as Mahadeo Chitra Mandir in the year 1977. They leased out the Cinema Hall to the defendant for 11 years and a deed of lease was executed on 31.7.1985 which was to expire on 31.7.1996. The monthly rent was Rs. 250/- The rent was to be paid by the 5th day of the succeeding month. In case of default in payment of rent the lessor would be entitled to evict the defendant from the suit premises. The lessee had to bear all the expenses for running the Cinema Hall, including electricity charges etc. The defendant was given possession of the Cinema Hall with all the furniture and materials for display of Cinema with effect from 1.8.1985. The defendant did not pay the monthly rent since the day the premises was leased out to him. A notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served on the defendant terminating the tenancy and requesting to vacate the suit premises. The plaintiffs were also in bona fide need of the suit premises for their sons and nephews who were sitting idle. The defendant damaged the furniture, building and the articles of the Cinema Hall.

3. The defendant admitted the tenancy but denied the allegation of default in payment of rent and also the personal need of the suit premises. His case was that there was no stipulation that rent would be paid month to month and if not paid the defendant would be liable to eviction. It was agreed that rent for several months could be paid at a time and he paid the rent of several months at a time which was accepted by the plaintiffs but no rent receipt was granted. In the lease some wrong entries were made at the instance of the plaintiffs on this point. After sometime the Cinema Hall was closed. The Cinema Hall was leased out for 11 years and before expiry of 11 years the plaintiffs had no right to get the defendant evicted from the suit premises. He paid the lent and he never defaulted in payment of rent. The claim of personal need of the suit premises is not genuine.

4. The trial court decreed the suit holding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant. The defendant defaulted in payment of rent and the plaintiffs were in bona fide need of the suit premises. On appeal by the defendant the appellate court affirmed the findings with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant and default in payment of rent, however, reversed the finding of the trial court with regard, to personal need of the suit premises and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

5. The substantial question of law framed at the time of admission is whether the Bihar Building (Lease, rent & eviction) Control Act, 1982 is applicable to the premises in question ?

6. The admitted position is that the Cinema Hall was leased out on 31.7.1985 for a fixed period of 11 years which was to expire on 31.7.1996 on monthly rental of Rs. 250/-. According to the terms of lease the rent was to be paid by 5th day of succeeding month. In case of default in payment of rent the lessor would be entitled to evict the defendant from the suit premises.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the Cinema Hall was leased out, such premises would be out side the scope of definition of the building as enumerated in Section 2(b) of Bihar Buildings (Lease, rent & viction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred as Bihar Control Act). To resolve the controversy it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions under the Act. Section 2(b) of the Bihar Control Act deals with the definition of building which reads as follows :-

2(b) 'building' means any building, or hut or a p