Gurusharan Sharma, J.

1. -the defendants are the appellants. They have lost in both the Courts below.

2. The plaintiff-respondent filed Title Suit No.62 of 1979 before the subordinate Judge, Depghar, for eviction of the defendant appellants from the suit premises detailed in the schedule to the plaint, as well as for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was decreed. The defendants preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Deoghar, and thereafter this appeal has been preferred. At the time of admission of this appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed :

"as to whether mere pleading is sufficient for eviction on the ground of personal necessity and, secondly as to whether on the face of the evidence led by the parties, the court below has erred in law in arriving at a finding that the rent for the months of November and December, 1978 was not tendered ?"

3. According to the plaintiff, she was born and brought up at Madhupur and after her marriage, she was living at Calcutta, where her husband was a railway employee. On 30-6-1978. she purchased the suit house at Madhupur from one D. N. Kundu, who had inducted Rameshwar P