The right to relief must be judged as on the date the legal proceeding is instituted, and the court can take into account subsequent events that conclusively establish the plaintiff's title over the suit premises.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as the respondents.

This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 9.7.1993 passed by 6th Additional District Judge, Chapra, in Eviction Appeal No. 6/2 of 1992 affirming the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1992 passed by Additional Munsif-II, Chapra, in Eviction Case NO.2 of 1988/16 of 1989.

2. The matrix of facts appearing from the pleadings of the parties is that the father of the plaintiff owned a double-storied house standing over an area of 2 kathas 1 dhur in Mohallah-Sahebganj, Chapra town, mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint. By gift deed dated 24.7.1974 he (father) gifted southern half of the house to the plaintiff and by gift deed of the same date he gifted northern half of the house to the brother of the plaintiff, namely, Baldeoji and delivered possession to the donees. The gifted portion of the house to the plaintiff has been described in Schedule-II of the plaint. The plaintiff and his brother Baldeoji, accordingly, got their names mutated with regard to their gifted portions in the house and. separate Holding Nos. 215 and 215-A had been established in the name of the plaintiff and his brother respectively.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are the tenants of the plaintiff in the two rooms on the ground floor at a monthly rental of Rs. 250/- per month. However, the plaintiff has asserted that he requires the suit premises reasonably and in good faith for the business purposes of his four sons, one of whom is running his business in a rented premises. Thus, the plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity alone.

4. The defendants in their written statement denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and have asserted that the plaintiff has no title and possession over the suit premises. It is the case of the defendants that no gift deed, as claimed, had been executed by the father of the plaintiff, namely, Basudeo Ji, in favour of the plaintiff, and the alleged deed of gift dated 24.7.1974 propounded by the plaintiff is forged, fabricated and inoperative document. The defendants have further stated that they never paid any rent to the plaintiff and further the need of the plaintiff for establishing his four sons in business has also been denied. The specific case of the defendants is that their father Kedar Maharaj had taken the suit premises on rent from Basudeo Ji for running his business. On 29.12.1977 Basudeo Ji gifted the suit premises to his son Ranbir Kumar Gupta, who accepted the same and Basudeo Ji directed the defendant-tenants to make payment of rent to Ranbir Kumar Gupta from January 1978 onwards. The defendants have claimed that they are regularly paying rent to Ranbir Kumar Gupta with regard to the rented premises. It has also been contended by the defendants that the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff had been cancelled on 30.8.1977 by a registered deed of cancellation against which the plaintiff had filed a title suit which though decreed but an appeal by Ranbir Kumar Gupta against the said judgment and decree is pending.

5. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence led by them the trial court came to the finding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and the defendants. The trial court had taken notice of the decision of the title suit in favour of the plaintiff, but refused to grant decree on the basis of title in absence of any relief based upon title and consequently dismissed the suit.

6. In appeal filed by the plaintiff the appellate court on reconsideration of the evidence has affirmed the finding of the trial court that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. While considering the grant of decree on the basis of title, the appellate court has held that since the defendants had set up the title of the suit premises into Ranb