K.C. AGARWAL, J. :- Suit No. 38 of 1966, giving rise to the above appeal, was field by the appellant M/s. Allahabad. Theatres Private Ltd., against the respondent Smt. Kusum Kumari for eviction from the property known as Jawahar Palace, No. 29(Old)/ 98 (new) Jawahar Square Allahabad, now run under the name of Naaz Cinema, along with all its fittings, electric and otherwise, furniture, operating instruments, fixtures and other appurtenant articles and accessories, including the building, seats, machinery and fans etc. A decree for arrears of rent, damages insurance money and Bhumi Bhavan Kar, amounting to Rs. 13,496.91 was also claimed.

2. The said suit was filed on the allegations that the appellant was a private limited company and had been floated with the object of carrying on the cinema business by acquiring lands and buildings for that purpose. The said Company constructed the premises No. 29(old)/98 (new) Jawahar Square, Allahabad. The entire building was fitted with projectors, screen, electric fittings, balcony, furniture, etc. The said accommodation was constructed for the purpose of cinema business and no other. The entire premises became ready in 1934 and the said company carried on the business of exhibiting films for some time, and thereafter they had been running the same business through others. It was further alleged in this connection that the entire cinema business, along with the building, cinema accessories, and articles appertaining thereto, including fittings, electric and otherwise, seats, machinery, furniture, etc., was leased out for two years by the appellant to the respondent on a fixed and unalterable rent of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. The period of two years was to expire on 30th November, 1962. The respondent had been carrying on the business under the name and style of Naaz Cinema and paying rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. on the basis of the aforesaid lease deed. The respondent did not vacate the premises on the expiry of the said period of two years and continued to run the business. The appellant subsequently by a notice dated 4th September, 1964 called upon the respondent to pay the arrears due from 1st January 1963 to 31st August 1964. The said notice had also purported to terminate the tenancy of the respondent. The appellant, thereafter, sent another notice, which was served on the respondent on 22nd September 1965, but the respondent neither remitted the entire rent which was due to the appellant nor did she vacate the premises and hand over the same to the appellant. Accordingly the appellant filed the aforesaid suit for the reliefs mentioned above.

It may be mentioned here that the appellant in the aforesaid suit also set up a plea, that since the cinema house along with the running business had been let out to the respondent, therefore the provisions of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act did not apply to the premises in question, hence, the appellant was entitled to the decree for eviction without proving compliance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act in the alternative it was, however, also pleaded by the appellant that even if it was found that the aforesaid Act applied to the premises in question, the respondent had committed default in making payment of rent in spite of the service of notice of demand under section 3(1)(a) of the said Act, and therefore she was liable to be evicted on that ground.

3. The suit was contested by the respondent, and the liability to eviction was denied. It was alleged by her that what was let out to her was the cinema building, which was 'accommodation' within the meaning of that word defined in the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, and, as such, she could not be dispossessed without complying with the provisions of the aid Act. In reply to the allegation relating to default committed by her in making payment of rent, it was asserted that she had paid the entire rent and that she could not thus be found to be a