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 Prasad Burman, the original defendant No.1 as a tenant therein at the rental of Rs.21/-per month. The tenant-defendant attorned the plaintiff as his landlady and started paying rent from July, 1978 and paid upto October, 1978. Thereafter, the payment of rent was stopped. For sometime past, the climate of Calcutta did not suit her and as such she felt the requirement of the suit premises at Madhupur, which was famous as health report, for her personal use and occupation. The plainiff further alleged that the tenant-defendant No.1, namely Rameshwar Prasad burman has sub-let front veranda of the suit premises to his brother Lakshmi narain Burman, defendant No.2 without her consent.

4. As per the plaintiff, the tenant-defendant was liable to be evicted for being a defaulter for non-payment of rent for the months November and december 1978 and onward as also because the plaintiff required the premises for her personal use and occupation.

5. On 6-4-1979, the plaintiff claimed to have served a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on the defendant No.1 determining the tenancy in respect of the suit premises. But even thereafter, the defendants neither vacated the suit premises, nor paid the arrears of rent and as such the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for eviction against them.

6. Both the defendants No.1 and 2 appeared in the suit and filed separate written statements, but their pleadings are almost common. It has been averred in the written statement that both the defendants are living jointly in their own house situated at Panch Mandir Road within ward No.2 of Madhupur Municipality. Both of them have been jointly carrying on business in part of the suit premises and the remaining part has been in occupation of other family members. It has been falsely alleged in the plaint that part of the suit premises has been let out to defendant No.2 by the defendant No.1 on rental of Rs.2/- per day.

7. According to the defendants, the land over which the suit premises exist is a non-transferable raiyati land which originally belonged to Pathrol estate. D. N. Kundu had taken temporary settlement of the land from pathrol Estate which subsequently vested in the State of Bihar with effect from 1-1-1956 under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. D. N, kundu filed writ application in this court Vide MJC No.674 of 1955 against the aforesaid vesting of land in the State of Bihar, which was dismissed by order dated 28-9-1956. However, Sri Kundu managed to continue in possession thereon in connivance with the local revenue authorities.

8. Initially, according to the defendants, rent for the suit premises was rs,.12/- per month, which was enhanced to Rs, 21/- and they were compelled to pay at the enhanced rate to the plaintiff, which