S.B.Sinha, J.

1. This Second Appeal out of a judgment and decree dated 24-9-1979 passed by Shree Prabhat Kumar Sinha, First Additional Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No. 39/3 of 1979/79, whereby and whereunder the said learned Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 13-4-1979 passed by Shree Uma Shanker Prasad in Title Suit No. 1 of 1978 dismissing the plaintiff-respondents suit.

2. By an order dated 5-2-1981 the following substantial question of law was formulated.--

Whether the defendant-appellant was a defaulter within the meaning of Section 12(1)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 and liable to be evicted from the suit premises?

3. Mr. B.K. Dey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, sought permission to raise another substantial question of law in this Second Appeal which is in the following terms:

Whether the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate Court while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court committed a serious error of law as it while doing so did not assign any cogent reason so far as the issue relating to relationship of landlord and tenant?

4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and in view of the peculiar facts and the circumstances of this case and regard being had to the nature thereof, I allowed him to raise the aforementioned question.

5. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the facts of the matter are as follows:

The plaintiff respondent purchased the property in suit by a registered deed of sale dated 15-5-1976 from Mst. Madina Khatoon. It is admitted that the defendant had all along been paying the stipulated monthly rent to the aforementioned Madina Khatoon.

6. It is also admitted that the defendant was given notice about the purchase of the property in suit by the plaintiff. Upon receipt of the said notice, the defendant enquired the name of the purchaser which was also disclosed to him. Thereafter the defendant wanted to peruse a copy of the deed of sale dated 15-5-1975 which was also supplied to him. The defendant thus satisfying himself about the bona fide of the said transaction paid the stipulated monthly rent to the plaintiff upto June, 1977.

7. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, inter alia, on the ground that so far as Bibi Madina Khatoon is concerned, she was digested of her interest in the property as allegedly in a partition suit amongst the co-sharer landlords the property in suit was not allotted to in her favour The learned lower appellate Court, however, found that in view of the fact that the defendant had been tendering the stipulated monthly rental to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and as mentioned hereinbefore the defendant paid rent to the plaintiff himself upto June, 1977 there existed relationship of landlord and tenant by and between the plaintiff and the defendant.

8. With regard to the question of default, the learned lower appellate Court relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Rajendra Mohan V/s. Smt Kamhalia Devi reported in -- and held that as the defendant did not send the arrears of rent by postal money order along with the current monthly rent, he became a defaulter.

9. Mr. Dey. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant firstly submitted that the aforementioned Division Bench decision having been over-ruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Raj Kumar Prasad V/s. Uchit Narain Singh reported in -- this appeal should be allowed. Mr. Dey further contended that despite the fact that the trial Court upon consideration of the evidences on record came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant, the learned lower appellate Court committed an illegality in reversing the said finding without assigning sufficient or cogent reasons therefor. In support of this submission Mr. Dey has placed strong reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Nokhey Lal Yad