The court must consider all subsequent events and circumstances when determining whether a landlord's requirement of the tenanted premises for his own use is reasonable and bona fide.

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

This appeal by the defendant-appellants is against the judgment of reversal passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 33/83, whereby he reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, Second Court, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 83/80 and decreed the Title Suit No. 83/80 for eviction.

2. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-

“(A) Whether the finding of the court below that the appellant had defaulted in paying rent for the months of January and July, 1979 can be sustained in law?

(B) Whether the finding of the court below that the respondents required the building for their own use and occupation can be upheld ?”

3. The plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid suit for a decree of eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the ground of default and personal necessity. The original plaintiff was Udit Ram Barai and after his death his sons were substituted. The case of the original plaintiff is that the defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the tenanted premises on a monthly rent of Rs.57/-. It was alleged that the defendant failed and neglected to pay the monthly rent from January, 79 till the month of April, 80. The plaintiff also made out a case that he required the suit premises for his own use and occupation in order to start business for his sons after making necessary reconstruction. As stated above, during the pendency of the suit the original plaintiff died and his sons were substituted and made parties. However, no addition or alteration was made in the plaint by the substituted plaintiffs.

4. The trial court framed as many as 9 issues. Issue no.5 is with respect to the material deterioration of the building premises. The allegation made by the plaintiff was that the condition of the building i.e. tenanted premises has been materially deteriorated owing to acts to waste or negligence or default of the tenant. This issue was decided against the plaintiff. Issue no. 6 is with respect to default. The trial court after considering the entire evidences, has come to a finding that the defendant is not a defaulter as he remitted the rent to the plaintiff within time. The trial court further disbelieved the case of personal necessity as made out in the plaint. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, preferred an appeal which was allowed by the impugned judgment and decree. The appellate court affirmed the finding so far issue of materially deterioration of the building is concerned but reserved the finding on the issue of default and personal necessity. On issue of default the appellate court arrived at a finding that rent for the month of January, 79 was remitted in January itself and, therefore, that was not a valid remittance in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Ujjal Singh & Sons vs. Rajendra Kumar Kedia (AIR 1986 Patna 162). The appellate court further held that rent for the month of July, 79 was not remitted within time. The appellate court, therefore, held that the defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent for the month of January and July, 79.

5. Mr. N.N. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, assailed the said finding of the appellate court in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Bhagwan Lal Burnwal vs. Deb Kumar Banerjee & ors. (1990 Vol. 2 PLJR 513).

6. However, Mr. Debi Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, accepted the legal position and submitted that he cannot support the finding of the appellate court and the question of default and the same will not be pressed. In my opinion, there is no need to discuss any further on the finding of default arrived at by the appellate court, which is accordingly reversed.

7. The next issue, which was decided by the appellate court, is bona fide personal necessity. For better appreciation, paragraph 25 of the appellate