Khatim Reza, J. – Heard Ms. Sheela Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Alok Kumar Chaudhary, learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2.

2. This Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants-respondents-appellants against the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the learned First Appellate Court. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2011 filed by the plaintiffs-appellants-respondent nos. 1 & 2 under Section 14 of the BBC Act on the ground contained in Section 11(1)(c) and 11(1)(e) and reserve their right to take another remedy on the ground of default in payment of rent. The defendants contested the claim by denying the title of plaintiff no. 1 and further denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties therefore, the question of default in payment of rent does not arise.

3. The eviction suit was dismissed by learned Sub Judge XVII, Patna vide judgment and decree dated 29.01.2019 passed in Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2011, which was thereafter challenged by the plaintiffs by preferring Eviction Appeal No. 05 of 2019. Upon hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record, the learned Additional District Judge XVII, Patna vide judgment and decree dated 14th March, 2023 passed in Eviction Appeal No. 05 of 2019, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court of appeal below, the defendant nos. 1 to 6/appellants have preferred the present Second Appeal.

5. On 13.08.2024, the following substantial questions of law were formulated while admitting the appeal: –

I. Whether a decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiff even though the plaintiff failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant?

II. Whether the learned Appellate Court has erred in law holding that plaintiffs are entitled for decree of eviction without interfering with the findings of the learned Trial Court that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant?

III. Whether the learned lower Appellate Court misdirected itself that the plaintiffs are owner of the suit premises and deemed to be landlord for the purpose of conducting eviction proceeding without establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant?

IV. Whether the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff or not, though the question of title, if disputed, may incidentally be gone into, in connection with the primary question for determining the main question about the relationship between the litigating parties?

6. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff no. 1 is owner and landlord of the three storied building constructed over 300 sq ft of land, which was purchased by plaintiff no. 1 for valuable consideration through registered deed of sale dated 02.02.2010. It is further pleaded that plaintiff no. 2 (the husband of plaintiff no. 1) looks after and manages the affairs and properties of plaintiff no. 1, and he is well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and is also competent to depose in the suit. He is also made plaintiff no. 2 in the present suit. It is contended that the aforesaid land consisted of building constructed on the ground floor measuring 200 sq ft, on the first floor 100 sq ft and on the second floor 100 sq ft. It is further contended that at the time of purchase by plaintiff no. 1, the first floor was occupied by defendant no. 1/ respondent no. 3 and his family (defendant 2nd set/appellants). The ground floor was tenanted to Sri Raju Kumar on the monthly rent of Rs. 3000/- per month. The second floor was occupied by one Arjun Prasad and at the request of the plaintiffs, the second floor was vacated by Arjun Prasad however, the tenant of the ground floor namely, Sri Raju Kumar requested the plaintiff for some time to vacate the premises on the ground floor.

7. Plaintiff no. 1 granted time to the said Raju Kumar on lease for a fixed period of 11 months from