JUDGMENT 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. 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. 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 part of the building or hut, let or to be let separately for residential or non-residential purposes, and includes- (i) the garden, grounds, and outhouses, if any appurtenant to such buildings or hut or part of such building or hut; and (ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or hut or part of a building or hut; 8. The Bihar Control Act has been enacted not only to control the rents of the buildings but also to prevent unreasonable eviction of the tenant there from. The Bihar Control Act deals with not only residential buildings but also non-residential building and it includes the garden, grounds and outhouses, if any a pertinent to such building or hut or part of such building or hut. It also includes any furniture supplied by the (landlord for use in such building or hut or part of the building or hut. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that the intendment of the Act is to confer wide amplitude on the word building. 9. The Bihar Control Act deals not only with the residential but also non-residential buildings. The word building used in section 2(b) of the Bihar Control Act has very wide import. Webster's dictionary defines it as a constructed edifice designed to stand more or less permanently, covering a space of land, covered by a roof and more or less completely enclosed by walls, and serving as a dwelling, storehouse, factory, shelter for animals or other useful structure. While Oxford Advanced Learner's dictionary defines it as a structure with a roof and walls, schools, churches, houses and Factories. The Chamber's dictionary defines the word house as a building for dwelling in; a building in .general, a dwelling place, an inn, a public house, a house-hold a trading establishment; a legislative or deliberative body or its meeting place; a convent; a school boarding house; an audience; auditorium. Thus from the use of word building under the Bihar Control Act the wide range of its definition can easily be gathered. Thus from the use of word building under the Bihar Control Act the wide range of its definition can easily be gathered. The definition of building in Section 2(b) of the Bihar Control Act clearly states building for residential or non-residential purposes. The Cinema Hall is nothing but a large house with furniture and cinema apparatus supplied. Therefore, it is reasonable to construe the definition of building as inclusive of a Cinema Hall. 10. It would be relevant to mention herein that specific provision has been made in the Bihar Control Act which deals with non-application of the provisions of the Bihar Control Act. The said provision is Section 32 of the Bihar Control Act which reads as follows:- 32. Act not to apply to buildings owned by Government and Trusts-Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to a tenant whose landlord is the local authority or the State Government or the Central Government or the Bihar State Shwetamber Jain Trust Board or Bihar Bihar State Digamber Jain Trust Board or the Wakf which may be under the Bihar State Wakf Boards. 11. It is manifest from the aforesaid provision that the Bihar Control Act has been made non-applicable only with regard to the buildings to a tenant whose landlord is local authority or the State Government or the Central Government or the Bihar State Shwetamber lain Trust Board of Bihar State Digamber Sain Trust Board or the Wakf which may be under the Bihar State Wakf Boards. In such a situation it would not be reasonable to restrict the meaning of building as has been enumerated in Section 2(b) of the Bihar Control Act only to a buildings used for residential purposes. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, relied upon a decision in the case of Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1758. In the above mentioned decision the Apex Court dealt with the provisions of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. Section 2 (1) (a) of the said Act deals with the definition of accommodation and it says that "accommodation means residential and non-residential accommodation in any building or part of the building and includes...... In the above mentioned decision the Apex Court dealt with the provisions of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. Section 2 (1) (a) of the said Act deals with the definition of accommodation and it says that "accommodation means residential and non-residential accommodation in any building or part of the building and includes...... ..." However, by amendment a clause was added which reads, "but does not include any accommodation used as a factory or for an industrial purpose where the business carried on in or upon the building is also leased out to the lessee by the same transaction." The Apex Court in the circumstances has held, 'where the lease is composite and has a plurality of purposes, the decisive test is the dominant purposes of the demise. Under the Act the protected category of accommodation is residential and non-residential building and not business houses. The legislature by the amending Act clarified what was implicit earlier and expressly carved out what otherwise might be mistakenly covered by the main definition." 13. It is manifest from the above mentioned decision that there was amendment in the Act whereby the promises used as a factory or for an industrial purposes where the business is carried' on in a building has been excluded from the application of the Act and the Apex Court taking into consideration the amendment in the Act has held as discussed above. In the 'Bihar Control Act' there is no such 'provision which excludes any, such premises. Thus in my view the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. 14. Thus, on consideration as discussed above, in my view the Bihar Control Act is applicable to the premises in question. Thus I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.