Vikramaditya Prasad, J.

1. The substantial questions of law to be answered in this second, appeal are :

(A) Whether the Lower Appellate Court could have reversed the findings of the trial Court by merely relying or oral evidence of witnesses and ignoring documentary evidence?

(B) Whether in view of admission of the plaintiff as well as Ext. 6, the learned lower appellate Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff was the landlord of the suit premises?

(C) Whether a mere suit for ejectment under the B.B.C. Act, 1982 is maintainable against a co-owner?

(D) Whether a family arrangement made between the co-sharers requires registration?

The appellant was at liberty to raise any other points at the time of hearing of this appeal, but no fresh question was raised.

2. The questions aforesaid arose out of the following facts. The plaintiff- respon-dent filed a suit against defendant- appellants for eviction from the land described in Schedule-A of the plaint on the ground of default in payment of rent as also on the ground of personal necessity of the suit land. The suit land is a shop standing over the portion of M.S. Plot No. 623 being portion of holding No. 773, Ward No. II, Ranchi Municpality, Ranchi, situated in Upper Bazar, Marwari Tola, Ranchi, bounded in North Jai Gurdeo Cloth Store of Satya Narain, south Bodh Bihar Electric Agency, East Road and West House of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims the suit land as owner of the land. His case is that in December 1975 the said premises was tenanted to Sri Ganesh Textiles, which was owned by Mahesh Kumar Poddar, husband of defendant No. 2, and others at the monthly rental of Rs. 450/-. In the year 1980 they left the premises and in, August 1980 the suit premises was tenanted to Ganesh Fabrics, owned by defendants the original tenant Mahesh Kumar Poddar and Hemant Kumar Poddar sons of Mahabir Prasad Poddar at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month. According to the terms of the tenancy the rent of the current month is payable in the subsequent month and the tenancy is according to the English calendar month commencing from the first day and ending on the last day of the same month, but from January 1981 onwards inspite of repeated requests made by the plaintiff the rent was not paid to him. The plaintiff was in great domestic trouble for a long time and he became financially handicapped hence he could no file the suit. Further case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff-respondent requires the building described in Schedule-A to the plaint for his own use and occupation bona fide, reasonably and in good faith as his sons have become major and are sitting idle and, therefore, as his sons constitute a joint Hindu family with the plaintiff, the plaintiff in order to settle them, requires the land in question for personal necessity. The relief was claimed for eviction of the defendants and for making over of the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants and the main case of the defendants was that the suit was not maintainable because in the garb of eviction suit, in fact, it was a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. According to the defendants-appellants the plaintiff was never the land lord in respect of the suit land and the description of the suit premises is vague and the plaintiff has not disclosed as to how he had acquired the title to the suit property described in Schedule-A. It was denied that Sri Ganesh Textiles was tenanted in that premises in the year 1975, rather it was pleaded that office and place of the business of Sri Ganesh Textiles was in North marked Road, which he had taken on rent from one Mandodari Devi and he was tenanted in that house. After functioning for one year that firm became defunct and was closed. Therefore, it was stated by them that it was wrong on the part of the plaintiff to allege that Sri Ganesh Textiles was tenanted in August 1980. It was also denied that Sri Ganesh Fabrics was al