JUDGMENT

Dr. ANAND, J.:—This appeal, by special leave, filed by the tenant, is directed against the dismissal of his Second Appeal, in limine by the High Court of Patna (Ranchi Bench) on 12-4-1985.

2. The landlord filed a suit for eviction of the appellant from the residential-cum-shop premises situate at holding No. 224/ D Ward No. 7 Bazar Mohalla Jugsalai. Shorn of details the case of the landlord is that the appellant was a tenant under him on a monthly rent of Rs. 70/-, but had not paid the rent of the disputed premises with effect from October, 1975 to June, 1976 and being a defaulter for more than two months, was liable to be evicted. The landlord also claimed arrears of rent from October, 1975 to June, 1976 amounting to Rs. 630/-. The landlord also pleaded his own bona fide requirement of the suit premises. The suit was filed in the Court of Munsif, Jamshedpur in 1976 because even after a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy had been served on the tenant, he did not vacate the premises. The suit was resisted and it was pleaded on behalf of the tenant-appellant that the premises in dispute originally belonged to one Smt. Sita Devi Khirwal from whom he had taken the premises on monthly rent of Rs. 55/-; that he had been paying the rent to Smt. Sita Devi Khirwal all along and after the plaintiff landlord purchased the house from her in 1968, the defendant continued as his tenant but the plaintiff-landlord illegally increased the rent of the suit premises from Rs. 55/- to Rs. 65/- p.m. (and not Rs. 70/- p.m.) under threat of eviction and the tenant paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 65/- per month up to the month commencing from 16th of January, 1976 when the plaintiff-landlord refused to accept the same with effect from 16-2-1976. It was maintained that the defendant-tenant had not defaulted in the payment of rent as subsequent rent had been sent by money order. It was also asserted that the landlord plaintiff did not have any bona fide necessity for the premises. On the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed:

"1. Is the suit as framed maintainable?

2. Have the plaintiffs any cause of action for the suit?

3. Has the tenancy of the defendant been validly determined?

4. Is the defendant a defaulter?

5. Do the plaintiff require the suit premises for their bona fide use and occupation?

6. Is the defendant liable to be evicted. from the suit premise?

7. Are the plaintiffs entitled to the arrears of rent as claimed?

8. To what relief or reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?

Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were decided against the defendant-tenant. Issue No. 5 was decided against the plaintiff-landlord and it was held that he had failed to prove his case regarding bona fide requirement of the suit premises.

3. Issues Nos. 4 and 6 were taken up together for consideration. The trial Court held on facts that the defend ant-tenant was a defaulter and was liable to be evicted from the suit premises.

Dealing with Issue No. 7, the trial Court noticed that the plaintiff-landlord had claimed arrears of rent from the defendant from October-, 1975 to June, 1976 @ Rs. 70/- per month. It was found that originally the rent of the suit premises was Rs. 55/- per month and that -the plaintiff-land lord had after purchasing the suit premises unlawfully enhanced the rent of the premises from Rs. 55/- to Rs. 65/-per month and that the tenant continued to pay the rent @ Rs. 65/- per month under threat of eviction. The landlord trial Court accepted the plea or the defendent-tenant that the plaintiff-landlord could not have enhanced the rent for the suit premises without taking recourse to the provisions of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter the Act) and held that the rate of rent for the suit premises shall be deemed to be Rs. 55/ - per month only. The trial Court, however, found, on facts, that the .defendant-tenant had not paid rent to the plaintiff-land lord from the m