S. B. Sinha, J.

This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 28-3-1987 passed by Sri Ramesh Prasad, Munsif East Muzzaffarpur in Misc. Case No. 42 of 1984 where by and where under he directed the petitioner to pay unto the opposite party a sum of Rs. 22, 746/- for occupying the building in question for the period 1-9-1984 to 11-12-1985 by way of damages calculated at the rate of Rs. 51/- per day.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.

3. The petitioner was a tenant in respect of the building in question for a fixed period. The said tenancy was created by an instrument dated 9-6-1983. The monthly rental in respect of the aforementioned building in question was Rs. 51/- However in the said instrument dated 9-6-1983 there was a stipulation that if the petitioner fails to vacate the house in question by 31-8-1984 he will have to pay the damages at the rate of Rs. 51/- per day. In terms of the aforementioned stipulation in the instrument dated 9-6-1983 the opposite party filed all application in the court of Munsif, East Muzzaffarpur purported to be in terms of section 18 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act. 1982.

Section 18 of the said Act, reads as follows:-

“18, Extension of period limited by lease - (1) If a tenant in possession of any building, held on a lease for a specified period, intends to extend the period limited by such lease, he may give the landlord at least one month before the expiry of the period limited by the lease a written notice of his intention to do so, and upon the delivery of such notice the said time shall subject to the provision of section 11 be deemed to have been extended by double the period covered by the original lease subject to a maximum of one year only.

(2) Where the landlord to whom notice has been given under sub-section (1) wishes to object to the extension demanded by the tenet on one or more of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 11 or on the ground that the landlord has any other good and sufficient cause for terminating the lease on the expiry of period limited thereby, he may within fifteen days of the delivery of such notice apply to the Court in that behalf and the Court after hearing the parties may terminate the lease or extend the same for such period as it deems proper in the circumstances :

Provided that the tenant shall not in any case to remain in possession of the building beyond the period permissible under sub-section (1).

(3) If the tenant fails to vacate the building on the termination of lease or as the case may be on the expiry of the period fixed by the Court under sub-section (2), the Court shall on an application by the landlord, pass an order for enjectment, which shall be executed as a decree and may further order that the tenant shall pay to the landlord such amount as may be determined by it as daily compensation.”

4. From a perusal of the aforementioned provision it is absolutely clear that the same provide for an extra ordinary remedy for the benefit of the landlord. By reason of sub-section 3 of section 18 of the said Act, an order passed by a Civil Court is executable as a decree.

The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is whether an order passed under section 18 of the said Act, is for all intent and purpose, a decree within the meaning of section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil procedure or not?

5 The question which also consequently arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned order whereby and where under the learned court below has determined the quantum of compensation payable by the petitioner to the opposite party in terms of the provision of section 18 (3) of the said Act, is an appeal-able order or not?

6 Any order which is a decree within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Act, is normally appeal-able unless and until a contrary provision exists in the Code of Civil Procedure or in any other law for the time being in farce.

7. In terms of section 96 of the