( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment dated 31st October 1980 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshanga-bad, decreeing the suit for ejectment and mesne profits in respect of a cinema hall situated at Itarsi and dismissing the appellant's counter-claim.

( 2 ) THE suit was instituted by the original plaintiff Maoji on 27th January 1975. Maoji died during the pendency of the suit on 16th January 1978 and his legal representatives who are respondents in this appeal were substituted in his

( 3 ) THE suit is based on an oral lease of the cinema hall given by Maoji in favour of the appellant which was terminated by notice with effect from 1st February 1975. The cinema hall was first leased out in 1958 to the appellant. Thereafter, it was again leased out in 1968. The monthly rent agreed was Rs. 900/ -. As there is no writing evidencing the lease, the tenancy has been treated to be from month to month, and there is no dispute between the parties on that point. The trial Court held that the lease was really a lease of cinema business and was not covered by the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, and, therefore, it was not necessary to plead and prove any of the grounds mentioned in Section 12 of the Act. Even so, the trial Court held the need of the plaintiff under Section 12 (1) (f) to be established. The trial Court also decided an issue having reference to Section 12 (1) (m) in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court allowed the mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month from the date of termination of tenancy. It further directed that in case the appellant did not vacate within two months from the date of the decree, the plaintiff would be entitled to get mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of the suit. There was a counter-claim by the appellant. The appellant's case was that he made certain constructions with the consent of the plaintiff in which he spent Rs. 31,954. 18 and that he was entitled to get this amount from the plaintiff. The counterclaim was dismissed on the finding that the constructions were not made with the consent of the plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE first question that arises in this appeal is whether the trial Court was right in holding that the lease was really a lease of cinema business and that it was not governed by the provisions of the Accommodation Control Act. It is only a lease of an accommodation as defined in Section 2 (a) of the Act which is governed by the provisions of the Act. Therefore, if in a given case what is leased out is a business carried on in a building, the lease will be out side the provisions of the Act. The principles bearing upon this question have been decided by the Supreme Court in Uttamchand v. S. M. Lalwani, AIR 1965 SC 716 and Dwarka Pd. v. Dwarka Das. AIR 1975 SC 1753. The test to be applied is of dominant intention and the question to be decided by us is whether the dominant intention was to let out the cinema business or, whether, it was a lease of the cinema building with furniture and fittings. The facts relevant on this point are that the plaintiff Maoji never carried on the business of exhibition of films in the cinema hall. The cinema hall is equipped with fans, furniture and some fittings. It, however, contains no machinery installed by the plaintiff for exhibition of films. The projector was installed by the appellant and it was thereafter that the exhibition of films started in the cinema hall. In deciding the question of dominant intention, one has to see whether the cinema hall is so equipped that the business of exhibition of films could be started by the lessee without incurring any substantial expenditure in making it reasonably fit for carrying on the business. Now when the projector or the machinery itself was not installed in the cinema hall, it cannot be said that it was equipped up to that standard. In such a situation, in our opinion, it can not be held that the domina