P.K.Deb, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the above-named defendant-respondent-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 4-12-1997 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Aurangabad, in Eviction Appeal No. 2 of 1990 (3 of 1993) reversing the judgment and decree dated 19-7-1990 passed by the Second Additional Munsif, Aurangabad, in Eviction Suit No. 2 of 1986.

2. The respondent No. 1 as a sole plaintiff filed Eviction Suit No. 2 of 1986 against the appellant as defendant No. 2 and respondent No. 2 as defendant No. 1 for vacating the premises in suit and for delivery of possession to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs case, in short, is that he being the karta of the family gave the suit house to defendant No. 1 (Respondent No. 1) consisting of three rooms and a varandah thatched with tiles as described in Schedule-I of the plaint at a rental of Rs. 60.00 . according to the English calendar month. As per the plaintiffs case, the aforesaid tenancy was commenced from 1-7-1985 and kirayanama was also executed on 28-6-1985 and thus, the relationship of landlord and tenant was there between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. It has been pleaded that defendant No. 1 had taken the premises for accommodation of his son and nephew who were residing there for their study at B.I.S. College Aurangabad. The relationship was cordial as defendant No. 1 was paying regular rent till November, 1985. But after that, he did not pay rent since December 1985. It was also pleaded that defendant No. 1 left the suit house by sub-letting the same to defendant No. 2 without the permission and consent of the plaintiff and hence, the suit has been filed for eviction of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from the suit premises. It was further contended that defendant No. 2 Lal Yadav was also inimical to the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 maliciously and motivatedly sub-let the suit house to defendant No. 2. It was also mentioned in the plaint that possession of defendant No. 2 in the suit house is nothing but that of a trespassers and as such the plaintiff has also claimed damaged at the rate of Rs. 5.00 per day.

3. Defendant No. 1 who is now respondent No. 2 in this appeal had filed a written statement supporting to the version of the plaintiff except with deviation to the effect that defendant No. 2 was given possession of sub-letting with the permission and consent of the plaintiff. It was also contended by defendant No. 1 as he had already vacated the suit premises he is not liable to pay rent as claimed from the side of the plaintiff.

4. Defendant No. 2 i.e. appellant in his appeal filed a separate written statement and took all pleas such as, non-maintainability of the suit, the suit is barred under the principles of Sec. 34 of the Specific Relief Act, that, the suit has been filed with suppression of facts and in the garb of declaration of title of the plaintiff. It was also contended that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of the parties. There is total denial of the plaintiff being karta of the family and as such other co-sharers, such as, Brahmadeo Yadav, Sheonandan Yadav, Surajdeo Yadav, Shatrughan Yadav and Yogi Yadav are the necessary parties to the suit. It was the contention of the defendant No. 2-appellant that the suit house stands on 4 decimals of land in plot No. 2047 appertaining to Khata No. 273 of village Shahpur and the total area of the plot No. 2047 is 42 decimals and out of this 21 decimals is in possession of Baiju Khemka, son of Hari Prasad Khemka by virtue of purchase, Baldeo Yadav father of the plaintiff and Sheonandan Yadav who is son of Brahmadeo Yadav and the rest 21 decimals is in possession of this defendant. According to him, 21 decimals of land is being utilised by defendant No. 2 by construction of the suit house on 4 decimals and the rest 17 decimals are being possessed by growing paddy, etc. The other 21 decimals of lands of Baiju Khemka was partitioned by metes and bounds. As per the defendants ca