S.K.Jha, J.

1. This is a defendant-tenants, appeal against a judgment of affirmance, referred to this Bench by a learned Single Judge (S. Ali, J.) of this Court by an order dated the 8th of November, 1971.

2. The concurrent findings of fact which were not challenged in this appeal as they could not be are these. The plaintiff who, on his death was substituted by his heirs the present respondents, had let out the land in question from which they had sought to evict the defendant-appellant in this suit, on a monthly rental of Rs. 7/- which was subsequently raised to Rs. 9/- proving the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Notice to quit under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act was duly served on the tenant-appellant determining the tenancy before the suit was instituted.

3. The respondents case was that they were the owners of the lands described in Schedule A of the plaint and the subject-matter of the suit is the land described in Schedule B which is a part of Schedule A lands and appertains to plot No. 1440 bearing old Municipal holding No. 400. The Schedule B land was let out to the appellant for temporary residence on a monthly rent. The tenancy was to begin from the 2nd of each English Calendar month. One of the conditions of the tenancy was that the appellant shall not make any permanent structure. The appellant failed to pay rent from the 2nd of April, 1946 to the 1st of February, 1964. He had further made pucca constructions in breach of the terms of the tenancy. Notice to quit was thereafter served and on the appellants failure to vacate, the present suit was instituted claiming eviction and the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 198/-, which amount only was not time barred. The appellants defence was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and he never paid any rent so that there could not be any question of any default in payment of rent or breach of the terms of the tenancy. The further defence was that the appellant had come to know that the respondents were tenants under erstwhile Dhalbhum Estate which in its turn had terminated the tenancy of the respondents and that after the vesting of the Dhalbhum Estate in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the respondents had no title to the suit lands. The courts below concurrently held that the respondents had fully proved their title and possession over Schedule A lands of which Schedule B land in question is merely a portion. The defence of the appellant that he was in possession of the land in his own right was rejected by both the courts below which came to the conclusion that the respondents had fully proved that the premises in question had been let out by them to the appellant on a monthly rental of Rs. 7/- which was subsequently raised to Rs. 9/- and that the appellant in spite of the non-payment of rent from the 2nd of April. 1946 was holding over as a tenant under the respondents, who had inducted the appellant on the land as a tenant and had put him in possession thereof.

4. These being the facts, the questions of law that were raised by Mr. Rai Paras Nath, learned counsel for the appellant were twofold:

(i) The appellant was entitled to raise the plea that the respondents title as lessors had since after the commencement of tenancy terminated by operation of law by virtue of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. 1950 whereby the entire Dhalbhum Estate must be deemed to have vested in the State of Bihar and that, therefore, the respondents even though they may be assumed to have the lessors right at the inception of the tenancy, had lost their right as lessors. In other words, according to learned Counsel, it ought to have been held by both the courts below that the title of the respondents as lessors had since come to an end after the commencement and during the continuance of the tenancy and in such cases the doctrine of estoppel as engrafted in S