The second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2013 passed by learned District Judge-IX, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No.63 of 2010 affirming and upholding the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2010 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No.40/2002 passed by learned Additional Munsif, 1st Dhanbad.

2. The appellant is the tenant. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. The defendant-appellant contested the suit taking the defence that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant. They are the owners of the suit premises and there is no question of payment of rent or default in payment of rent. They questioned the maintainability of the suit on that ground and prayed for dismissing the suit.

3. Learned trial court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as nine issues. Among them, issues as to whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, whether the defendant defaulted in payment of rent and whether the plaintiffs need the suit property bonafide were arrayed as issue nos. 4, 5 and 6 respectively.

4. Both the parties led evidences – oral and documentary.

5. Learned trial court, after thorough discussion and consideration of the facts, law and evidences on record, decided the said Issue nos. 4, 5 and 6 in favour of the plaintiffs holding that there is relationship of landlord and tenant, the defendant defaulted in payment of rent and that the plaintiffs need the suit premises for bonafide use and occupation.

6. Learned trial court, thus, decreed the suit.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant-tenant filed Title Appeal no.63 of 2010 in the court of District Judge, Dhanbad.

8. The said appeal was finally heard and disposed of by learned District Judge-IX, Dhanbad.

9. On the basis of the grounds taken in the appeal, learned lower appellate court formulated the following two points for determination :-

(i) Whether the learned court below, without appreciating the evidence on record properly, has arrived at a conclusion that there is existence of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant and hence the judgment of the court below is bad in law and liable to be set aside ?

(ii) Whether the learned court below, while passing the impugned judgment, has committed any material error, illegality or irregularity either in fact or in law which warrants interference in the judgment and decree passed by the lower court ?

10. Both the parties addressed learned lower appellate court on the said points.

11. In order to arrive at conclusion on the same, learned lower appellate court thoroughly discussed the facts and evidences in detail and on due consideration of the relevant aspects, facts and materials on record as well as provisions of law answered both the points in negative. Learned lower appellate court held that the plaintiffs-respondents have proved that they are landlord of the suit premises and the defendants are tenant who have defaulted in payment of rent of more than two months and there is no infirmity or illegality in the finding recorded by learned lower court. Learned lower appellate court, thus, dismissed the appeal.

12. In this second appeal, the judgment and decrees of the courts below have been assailed on two grounds by the appellant ; firstly that the learned courts below have not properly discussed the documentary evidences (Exhibits-3 and 6) and have come to an erroneous finding holding that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and secondly that though the plaintiff had not paid ad-valorem court fee, learned courts below have erroneously decided the issue of title.

Learned counsel for the respondent, contesting the appeal, submitted that learned trial court as well as learned lower appellate court have thoroughly