The courts have jurisdiction to decide the question of title in a suit for eviction, and a default in payment of rent for more than two months can lead to liability for eviction under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act.

1. The tenant is the petitioner in this civil revision application against the judgment and decree of the appellate Court dated 25th of September, 2002 passed in Eviction Appeal No. 2 of 1994 whereby the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal against the judgment and decree of eviction passed on 10th September, 1983 in Eviction Suit No. 1 of 1987.

2. The subject matter of eviction is house standing over 4 Dhurs of land under Khesra No. 832/41, Khata No. 63 in Mohalla-Bagh Taj Khan @ Pokhra Ward No. 11, P.S. Hajipur town, District Vaishali. The eviction suit was filed under section 11(1) (d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (herein after referred to as the Act) for default in payment of arrears of rent for more than two months. The suit was filed by Nand Lal Choudhary who died during pendency of the suit and substituted by his heirs and legai representatives. The suit premises admittedly belonged to Choudharain, mother of the plantiff Nand Lal Choudharian and her floor and second floor were in possession of aforesaid Binda Choudharian and her family members and after her death is in possession of other family members. There are shops on the ground floor, some of which are in their occupation. The aforesaid Binda Choudharian on 1.1.1971 let out the suit premises on monthly rental of Rs. 125/- to the defendant tenant Ashwani Kumar Verma who executed Kiryanama in favour of Binda Choudharain. The said Binda Choudharain died in the year 1984 leaving behind original plaintiff Nand Lal Choudhary who also stated above died leaving behind his heir and legal representatives during pendency of the suit. The original tenant Ashwani Kumar Verma and his father opened a cycle shop in the suit presmises. Thereafter they opened another shop in the name of Progressive Sales Agency in partnership with Dinesh Kumar Srivastava. Thereafter they closed and opened another business. They were paying rent to aforesaid Binda Choudharain since 1980. Thereafter the rent was enhanced from Rs. 125/- to Rs. 250/- and defendants/petitioners started paying the same since January, 1981 and rent receipts were granted to them. Since January, 1984 the defendants/tenants made a default in payment of rent. Thus, they are defaulter for more than two months. Hence the suit.

3. The suit was contested only by defendant/petitioner No. 1 Anil Kumar Sinha and his wife defendant/petitioner No.2 Smt. Indumati Sinha. Subsequently the name of Defendant Ashwani Kumar Verma was deleted in pursuance of an order of this Court in Civil Revision No. 1492 dated 24.9.1991. They admitted that the suit premises belonged to Binda Choudharain. Defendant No. 4/petitioner No.2 Smt. indumati Sinha was tenant of Binda Choudharain and she was paying rent to her and after her death in January, 1984 she started paying rent to Khakhiya Choudharain, one of the daughters of Binda Choudharain as the same was allotted to her in a family arrangement. She regularly paid the rent to Khakhiya Choudharain and thus no default has occurred. According to them rent @ Rs. 125/- was enhanced to only Rs. 200/- and not Rs. 250/- as alleged by the plaintiffs/opposite parties.

4. The plaintiffs/opposite parties examined 17 witnesses and the defendants examined 18 witnesses and they have also filed documentary evidence and both the courts below having considered the same came to the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants and the original plaintiff Nand Lal Choudhary was the only son of Binda Choudharain and Khakhiya Choudharain was not the daughter of Binda Choudharain and as no rent was paid since 1984 to the landlord Nand Lal Choudhary, the defendants have defaulted in payment of rent for more than two months and thus they are liable for eviction under Section 11 (1)(d) of the Act.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in a suit for eviction, the Court cannot decide the question of