CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.:–This second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgement and decree dated 23.12.1999 passed by learned VIth Additional District Judge, Begusarai in M.T. A. No. 4 of 1989/7 of 1994, whereby he has reversed the judgment and decree dated 13.01.1989 passed by learned Munsif II, Begusarai in T.S. (Eviction) No. 152 of 1984/171 of 1987. Learned Munsif II, Begusarai after coming to a conclusion that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants had held that, therefore, there was no occasion to go into the question of personal necessity of the plaintiff or recovery of default in payment of amount of rent. Learned trial court, accordingly, dismissed the suit. Reversing the findings of the trial court, learned lower appellate court in its impugned judgement came to a finding that the plaintiff was the landlord of the suit house and the defendants, the tenants of the said house and, accordingly, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 before the court below is, thus, appellant in the present second appeal.

2. I have heard Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents at length. The parties have also filed their written notes of arguments which are there on record.

3. The plaintiff-Prafulla Chandra Gupta (respondent No.1) instituted the Eviction Suit No. 152/1984 seeking eviction of Janardan Singh (defendant No.1), Gopal Singh (defendant No.2), Rajeev Singh (defendant No.3) and Ranjit Singh (defendant No.4) from the suit premises. The said Janardan Singh, Rajeev Singh and Ranjit Singh are respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 respectively, in the present second appeal whereas the plaintiff-Prafulla Chandra Gupta is respondent No.1. Defendant No.2- Gopal Singh is appellant herein.

4. It was the plaintiff’s case before the trial court that Akhandi Singh and Janardan Singh had taken the suit premises, as described in schedule-I of the plaint, in the year 1971 from the plaintiff’s father Badri Lal Gupta on monthly rental of Rs. 150/-, on the basis of an oral agreement with certain terms and conditions, which included that the defendants would pay the rental to the plaintiff by last day of the month and in default they would vacate the premises within 15 days thereafter. It was also agreed upon that in case of personal necessity of the plaintiff; the defendants would vacate the suit premises. The agreement is said to have further included that the defendants would not make any alteration in the suit premises and, if required, it would be done by the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the defendants thereafter started their transport business in the name and style of Jawahar Transport Agency. The said Akhandi Singh died leaving behind him his sons, namely, Gopal Singh, Rajeev Singh and Ranjit Singh (defendants No. 2 to 4; respondents No. 2 to 4). The original landlord Badri Lal Gupta also died leaving behind his sons, namely, Devi Lal Gupta, Girish Chandra. Gupta, Ram Prakash Gupta and Prafulla Chandra Gupta (the plaintiff) in jointness. It was further pleaded that Girish Chandra Gupta became Karta of the family and defendants started paying rent to him. Upon death of Badri Lal Gupta they apprehended partition in the family and, therefore, requested the defendants to vacate the suit premises on 01.04.1983 as they required it for their personal need. It was further case of the plaintiff that the defendants agreed to vacate the suit premises by end of the year 1983 but they failed to vacate the premises as promised by them. On 18.06.1983, sons of Badri Lal Gupta separated from each other and in an amicable partition among the sons of Badri Lal Gupta, the suit premises fell in the share of Prafulla Chandra Gupta (respondent No.1).

5. As per the plaintiff’s case, after partition, he requested the defendants to vacate the s