ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA J.

1. This second appeal is by some of the heirs of defendant no. 1 and is against the judgment of reversal.

2. The plaintiffs brought a suit for eviction against defendant no. 1 on the ground that he was a defaulter. The default was said to be the period from April, 1967 to May 1968.

3. The trial court dismissed the suit and held that there was no default. It also held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant. It further held that notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was not valid.

4. Thereafter plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the lower appellate court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal. It held that the defendants were the defaulters. It also held that after the death of the original defendant no. 1 and also in view of the denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the original defendant, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants. It further held that the plaintiffs had a perfect title over the house in question by virtue of their purchase and having held as such the lower appellate court directed the plaintiffs to pay the court fee of Rs. 14,000/- (on the value disclosed in the sale deed) and further directed that if the court fee was paid within the time granted by the court, the appeal of the plaintiffs would stand allowed. The lower appellate court further held that the defendants were mere trespassers.

5. With these findings, the lower appellate court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal.

6. It is pertinent to state here that the plaintiffs have paid the required court fees, as directed by the lower appellate court within the time granted by the court. The learned counsel appearing for the present appellants also stated that the plaintiffs had already paid the court fees as directed by the lower appellate court. Thus, the appeal in lower appellate court was allowed.

7. Before I proceed to consider the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is desirable to state a few facts. The premises in question bas Holding No. 554 (previously Holding No. 1140) and is in ward No. 9 of Hazaribagh town. Admittedly, it formerly belonged to one Gobind Sahu. The plaintiffs case was that the plaintiffs purchased the house by a registered deed or sale deed on 2.7.1965 from the original owner Gobind Sahu for a consideration of Rs, 14,000/- and since then the plaintiffs became the Owners of the said house and have title and possession over the same. The plaintiffs' further pleaded that they had got their names mutated with regard to the said house in the office of Hazaribagh Municipality and have been paying the municipal tax and obtaining receipts.

8. The plaintiffs' case was that the plaintiffs were living jointly with their respective husbands (who are own brothers) and it was the husband of plaintiffs no. 1 (Md. Moulvi) who was looking after the said house and realising the rent etc. for and on behalf of the plaintiffs.

9. According to the plaintiffs, the original defendant (Nand Kishore Prasad) was a month to month tenant with regard to the house in question excluding one room under the then landlord. The plaintiffs pleaded that thy informed the original defendant (Nand Kishore Prasad) about the aforesaid sale deed in their favour by the original owner Gobind Sahu, immediately after the execution of the said registered sale deed in 1965. The plaintiffs case, further was, that they were owners, of the house in question having full title thereon by virtue of purchase and the defendant paid the house rent to them through Md. Moulvi (husband of plaintiff no. 1) which was accepted by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs case was that the monthly rent payable by the original defendant (Nand Kishore Prasad) was Rs. 18/- and that the defendant was a month to month tenant. The plaintiffs further pleaded that despite demands the defendants did not pay the