(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYENDRA NATH)

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C. II, on 24-6-2006 in M.T.A.No. 3 of 2002 reversing the judgment and decree passed by Munsif I, Begusarai on 24-1-2002 in Eviction Suit No. 28 of 1987 filed on the ground of personal necessity under section 11(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent And Eviction) Control Act, 1982.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the plaintiffs have come out with the case that the suit property originally belonged to Mosaheb Lal and after his death it was inherited by his only son Medni Prasad who also died leaving daughters only who inherited the entire property including the suit property and in partition amongst them it fell to the exclusive share of one of the daughters Nand Rani Devi. After the death of Nand Rani Devi, his son Deepak Shekhar inherited the property. The plaintiffs are purchasers of the suit property from Deepak Shekhar through four registered sale deeds dated 20-9-1986. The defendant 1st set was the tenant in the suit property from before. As the plaintiffs had purchased the suit property for the purpose of constructing a new house in order to accommodate their large family after raising funds by selling away their small house and as they have been residing in a rented house, a request was made by them to the defendant 1st set to vacate the premises and on the refusal, the suit has been filed for eviction.

4. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit house and set up a title into themselves stating that their predecessor-in-interest Keso Poddar acquired the suit property in the year 1910 from Mosaheb Lal and in the year 1912 from Ram Sahay Chaudhary in the name of his wife Bhatni Devi, who later on gifted that property to her daughter-in-law Kaili Devi, who is defendant 2nd set, by a registered gift deed dated 17-11-1986. It is the case of the defendants that since thereafter they have been coming in possession of the suit property and have also been letting out the portion of the building of the suit property to the tenants. The defendants in specific terms have asserted that the vendor of the plaintiffs Deepak Shekhar never acquired any title over the suit property and consequently the plaintiffs have also no title over the suit property. 5. At the initial stage, the defendants filed a petition objecting to the maintainability of the suit itself under section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Leave, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. However, the trial court rejected the objection and in the civil revision application filed by the defendants, this Court upheld the order of the trial court rejecting the objection by the defendants taking notice of the fact that the plaintiffs have only sought for relief of eviction and no other relief has been sought for. However, the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2649 of 1997 preferred by the defendants by order dated 7-4-1997 permitted them to raise the issue of title in the eviction suit itself for adjudication. In view of the direction of the Apex Court the issue of title along with other issues has been framed and considered by the courts below.

6. The trial court framed Issue no.4 and Issue no.5, relating to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiffs and the defendants and acquisition of title by the defendants over the suit property respectively. After elaborately considering the evidence on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that the defendants had no title over the suit property as claimed by them and the plaintiffs have acquired valid title over the suit property through their purchase. The trial court has also recorded the finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the pl