JUDGMENT R. N. Prasad, J. This appeal has been, filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.7.1993, passed by 3rd Addl. District Judge, Saran. Chapra in Eviction Title Appeal No. 2/88 affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1988 passed by 4th Sub-Judge, Chapra in Eviction Title Suit No. 20/83. 2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a Title Suit against the defendant-appellant and defendant respondent for their eviction from the suit promise on the ground of default in payment of rent and also on the ground of personal necessity claiming to be owner of the suit premises. They purchased the suit premises through registered sale deed dated 12.9.1975 from Bharat Prasad. The defendants were canning Cinema in the suit premises. After purchase they became tenants of the plaintiffs. In the year 1977 the plaintiffs filed Title Suit no. 152/77 against Vijay Kumar Singh for eviction from the suit premises. The said Vijay Kumar Singh being karla as well as Manager of the joint family, compromised the suit and a compromise decree was prepared in which they admitted title of the plaintiffs and agreed to pay rental at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month with effect from 1.3.1980 according to English Calendar. They did not pay the rent with effect from 1.3.1980 to 31.3.1983 at the rate of Rs.200/- per month amounting to Rs. 7000/- and as such they became defaulter. They are also in bona fide need of the suit premises for their own use and business. 3. Defendant no. 2 contested the suit and filed written statement. In the written statement he admitted that he is tenant of the plaintiffs but denied that defendants nos. 1, 2 & 3 have any concern with the suit premises. The Cinema is not a joint family property of the defendants but it is his exclusive property. He is separate in mess and business. Defendant no. 1 was not the Karta or Manager of the family and hence compromise decree in T. S. No. 152/77 was not binding on him. He denied that he defaulted in payment of rent and also that the plaintiffs are in bona fide need of the Suit premises. He also claimed that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the suit premises vacated prior to 1st April, 1989 in view of fixed term tenancy. 4. He denied that he defaulted in payment of rent and also that the plaintiffs are in bona fide need of the Suit premises. He also claimed that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the suit premises vacated prior to 1st April, 1989 in view of fixed term tenancy. 4. The trial court decreed the suit and held that defendants have defaulted in payment of rent and as such plaintiffs are entitled to arrears of rent. The plaintiffs are also in bona fide need of the suit premises. On appeal by the defendants the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the finding of the trial court with regard to default in payment of rent. However, the appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court on the question of personal necessity of the plaintiffs. 5. The question arises for determination as to whether the plaintiffs In view of Ext. 5, a compromise decree creating fixed term tenancy and in absence of any forfeiture clause, the plaintiffs would be entitled to a decree of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent under section 11 (i) (d) of the Bihar Building (Lease, rent and eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Bihar Control Act, 1982’). 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that vide Ext. 5, the compromise decree, a fixed term tenancy was created which was to expire on 30th March, 1989. There was no forfeiture clause as per section 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act and as such the defendants cannot be evicted under section 11 (i) (d) of Bihar Control Act, 1982 on the ground of default in payment of rent. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that even in the case of fixed term tenancy and in absence of any forfeiture clause the tenants may be evicted under section 11 (i) (d) of the Bihar Control Act, 1982. 7. It is an admitted position that plaintiffs filed suit for eviction bearing Title suit no. 152/77 against the defendants. The said suit was compromised by Vijay Kumar Singh one of the defendants as karta of the family and a compromise decree was prepared. According to the compromise decree, Ext. 5, a fixed term tenancy was created which was to be expired on 30.3.1989. The defendants were required to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs. The said suit was compromised by Vijay Kumar Singh one of the defendants as karta of the family and a compromise decree was prepared. According to the compromise decree, Ext. 5, a fixed term tenancy was created which was to be expired on 30.3.1989. The defendants were required to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month with effect from 1.3.1980. There was no forfeiture clause, However, the defendants failed to pay the rent with effect from 1.3.1980, to 31.1.1983 and as such they defaulted in payment of rent. The trial court as well as the appellate court held that defendants have defaulted in payment of rent and as such liable to be evicted. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that since there was no forfeiture clause as provided under section 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a decree of eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent under section 11 (i) (d) of Bihar Control Act, 1982. In support of his submission he relied upon a decision in the case of Modern Hotel, Gudur-v-K. Radhakrishnaiah & ors, A.I.R. 1989 Supreme Court-1510, wherein it has been held that in case of fixed term tenancy and in absence of forfeiture clause as provided under section 111 (g) of Transfer of Property Act and contractual tenancy subsisting the land lord would not be entitled for decree of eviction during subsistence of lease. 9. In this regard it would be pertinent to mention here-in that the Apex Court while considering the case under Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960, here-in-after to be referred to Andhra pradesh Control Act, has laid down the law as indicated above. Section 10 of Andhra Pradesh Control Act deals with eviction of tenant Sub-section (3) of Section 10 says that the landlord may under certain circumstances apply for an order directing the tenant to vacate the premises and put the land-lord in possession of the premises. However, clause (d) of sub-section (3) say that where the tenancy is for specified period agreed upon between the land-lord and tenant the landlord shall not be entitled to apply under this sub-section for eviction of the tenant before expiry of such specified period. However, under Bihar Control Act there is no such provision. However, clause (d) of sub-section (3) say that where the tenancy is for specified period agreed upon between the land-lord and tenant the landlord shall not be entitled to apply under this sub-section for eviction of the tenant before expiry of such specified period. However, under Bihar Control Act there is no such provision. Section 11 of Bihar Control Act deals with eviction of the tenant on the ground enumerated therein. The relevant portion of Section 11 (1) is quoted here-in below:- "Section 11 (1) ;- (a) X X X X X X X (b) X X X X X X X (c) X X X X X X X (d) Where the amount of two months rents, lawfully payable by the tenant and due from him is in arrears by not having been paid within the time fixed by contract, or in the absence of such contract, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable or by not having been validly remitted or deposited in accordance with section 16 (e) X X X X X X X (f) X X X X X X X 10. It is manifest from Section 11 of Bihar Control Act as quoted above that it is non-obstinate provision which says that notwithstanding any thing contained in any contract or law to the contrary where a tenant is in possession of any building, he shall not be liable to eviction there from except in execution of a decree passed by the Court on one of more grounds mentioned therein. Therefore, a tenant may be evicted only on the grounds enumerated in Section 11 of Bihar Control Act. Sub clause (1) (d) of Section 11 provides that a tenant may be evicted on the ground of default in payment of rent. There is no provision under section 11 of Bihar Control Act that tenant shall not be evicted in case of fixed term tenancy before expiry of such period enumerated in the agreement as has been provided under Andhra Pradesh Act. Since the provision under Section 11 of Bihar Control Act is non-obstante provision and as such a tenant can be evicted before expiry of such period on the ground of default in payment of rent under section 11 (1) (d) of Bihar Control Act. Since the provision under Section 11 of Bihar Control Act is non-obstante provision and as such a tenant can be evicted before expiry of such period on the ground of default in payment of rent under section 11 (1) (d) of Bihar Control Act. It would not be out of place to mention herein that similar question arose in the case of Smt. Madalsa Devi-v Smt. Mirdula Chandra, 1993 (1) P.L.J.R. 50 and a Division Bench of this Court has held that a tenant would be liable to be evicted irrespective of the fact whether tenancy was for month to month or for a fixed period. 11. Thus on consideration as discussed above, I feel no hesitation in holding that even in a case of fixed term tenancy a tenant can be evicted on the grounds enumerated under section 11 of Bihar Control Act. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant. however, further pointed out that the plaintiffs purchased the suit premises through separate sale deeds and they have filed the suit jointly Their cause of action can not be the same and as such the suit at their instance jointly cannot be maintained. In this regard it would not be out of place to mention herein that it is true that the plaintiffs purchased the suit premises through separate registered sale deed dated 12.9.1975, They did not purchase a particular portion of the suit premises rather they purchased share in the suit premises. It would be evident from the plaint itself that they have no separate cause of action rather they have also same cause of action as mentioned in the plaint it self. Further more, Rule 3 of Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with jointer of cause of action which reads as follows- 3 (1) Save as other wise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants Jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit. 2 X X X X X X X 13. 2 X X X X X X X 13. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the plaintiffs may unite in the same suit having several causes of action against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested may unite such causes of action in the same suit against the same defendant or same defendants. Therefore, it is held that the plaintiffs having causes of action ill which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or defendants may maintain the suit jointly. 14. On consideration of the entire facts as indicated above, I find no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. 15. Thus I find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed but without cost. Appeal dismissed.