Poonam Srivasta v, J.-The instant second appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 27.5.2006 passed by District Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Eviction Appeal No. 14 of 2004, confirming the judgment dated 25.9.2004 and decree signed on 8.10.2004, passed by Munsif, Jamshedpur in Eviction Suit No. 25 of 2000.

2. In the present second appeal, the substantial question of law framed at the time of 'Admission', is quoted below-

"Whether the learned courts below have recorded their finding misconstruing Exhibit 'A' which is at least a declaration showing the nature of possession of the defendant-appellant?"

3. The facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint is that the grandmother of the plaintiff was the original owner of the entire holding no. 1203 of Sonari Christian Basti, Sonari. The defendant/Appellant was inducted as a tenant in respect of a room accommodation with asbestos-roof measuring 6' x 8'. The disputed premises was detailed in the schedule at the foot of the plaint. At the time of induction, the appellant paid rent of Rs. 15/- per month besides the electrical charges. According to the appellant, the relationship of landlord tenant with the original landlady continued till the year 1978.

The plaintiff's grandmother died in the same year and thereafter, his mother inherited the property being the only legal heir and successor. The plaintiff's mother stepped in the shoes of the landlady and the appellant continued in occupation.

The claim of the plaintiff is that she continued paying rent of Rs. 15 initially, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 20 per month on mutual agreement between the appellant and the plaintiff's mother.

4. In the year 1985, the plaintiff's mother died and the entire holding devolved upon the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the defendant stopped payment of rent w.e.f. March, 1995. The plaintiff made repeated request but his demand of rent was not acceded by the appellant and as a consequence, he did not receive any rent thereafter.

5. The suit was instituted for arrears of rent as well as on the ground of personal necessity. A legal notice was given on 26th April, 2000. Thereafter, despite repeated requests to the defendant for handing over vacant possession, the appellant refused to vacate the premises. Consequently, the suit was instituted. Plaintiff has claimed arrears of rent only for a period of three years i.e. June, 1997 till May, 2000 @ Rs. 20/- per m.onth.

Time barred rent up till May, 1997 was not claimed.

6. The defendant filed her written statement and she denied the relationship of landlord and tenant though, it was admitted that initially the plaintiff Was inducted as a tenant from month to month in the year 1968 in respect ,of two rooms and verandah of holding no. 1203, Sonari Christian Basti. The claim of the defendant is that the grandmother of the plaintiff subsequently gifted the accommodation in which she is living. Smt. Hiramani Toppo (grandmother) executed a Gift Deed on 29.4.1974 on account of humanitarian services rendered to her.

It is further stated that Smt. Hiramani Toppo has specifically mentioned in the deed that no rental will be paid by the appellant and none of the legal heirs or successor of Smt. Hiramani Toppo will have the right to disturb the appellant from her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the accommodation in question during her lifetime. But this was with an embargo that the appellant had no right of transfer of the said accommodation. She denied that she ever paid rent either to the mother or to the plaintiff.

7. The Trial Court framed as many as seven issues which are enumerated below:-

(i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff has get valid cause of action for the suit?

(iii) Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?

(iv) Whether the defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent of the suit?

(v) Whether the disputed premises is required by the plaintiff for its personal neces