D.N. Upadhyay, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Present Second Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner – cum – Special Judge, C.B.I. (A.H.D.), Ranchi in connection with Title Appeal No. 85 of 2006 whereby the Judgment dated 25.05.2006 and Decree Dated 25.05.2006 passed and signed by Munsif, Ranchi in connection with Title Suit No. 99 of 1984/Title Suit No. 100 of 1984 have been affirmed.

3. Originally Title Suit No. 99 of 1984 on the ground of personal necessity as envisaged under Section 11(1)(c) and Title Suit No. 100 of 1984 on the ground of defaulter under Section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 [hereinafter referred as 'B.B.C. Act' in short] filed by the plaintiff Muneshwar Dayal against defendant Thakur Maharaj were amalgamated and decided by a common Judgment dated 25.05.2006 and a common Decree was prepared and signed on 02.06.2006. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff Muneshwar Dayal as well as defendant Thakur Maharaj died and they were substituted by their legal heirs and successors who have contested the suit and the appeal as well. The appellant is the defendant whereas respondents are the plaintiffs.

4. According to the plaint, the suit property as described in the plaint was owned and possessed by Jagdishwar Dayal @ Gopal Prasad. The original defendant Thakur Maharaj was inducted as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.150/-and he was running a Hotel. Jagdishwar Dayal @ Gopal Prasad died issueless in the year 1982. Since he was having no Class-I legal heirs, Muneshwar Dayal (uncle of Gopal Prasad) being Class-II heirs, inherited the property left by his nephew Gopal Prasad and got the suit property transferred in his name in the Municipal record as well as in the record of other concern and he started paying required rent for the suit premises. After death of Gopal Prasad, original plaintiff Muneshwar Dayal asked the original defendant Thakur Maharaj to pay rent to him from the month of February, 1982 but it was not complied with.

In this regard notices were also served upon the defendant. It is also averred in the plaint that the suit premises is required for personal use and occupation of the plaintiffs and his family members because they had been living in a rented house and the family has also expanded. Some of the male members in the family were unemployed and they were intending to run business in the suit premises. Since the defendant refused to vacate the suit premises and to pay the rent, the plaintiffs filed a suit on the ground of willful default in payment of rent for more than two months and rent for the subsequent months and also on the ground of personal necessity as the suit premises was reasonably and in good faith was required for their use and occupation.

5. The original defendant – Thakur Maharaj appeared before the Court and filed written statement stating therein the suit is not maintainable in its present form. The plaintiffs have no right to bring the suit for eviction. The suit is barred by Law of Limitation and bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The specific case which the defendant has made out in his written statement is that the original landlord Jagdishwar Dayal @ Gopal Prasad was living alone and he was not having sufficient income to maintain himself and, therefore, he was having his breakfast, lunch and dinner in the hotel of defendant and Bill against consumption of meal was to be adjusted out of the rent payable by the defendant. Lastly a sum of Rs.17,973/- had become due against the landlord.

Besides aforesaid dues, a sum of Rs.37,652/- was taken as a loan by the landlord. When Jagdishwar Dayal @ Gopal Prasad failed to repay the loan amount and dues lying against him, he had agreed to sell the suit property to the defendant for a valuable consideration of Rs.60,000/-and for that, an agreement for sale was executed on 31.12.1981 (Ext.-B) in favour