ORDER :

1. This appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment & decree dated 04.09.2017 and 11.09.2017 respectively, passed in Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017, by the Principal District Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa, whereby the First Appellate Court has reversed the judgment/decree of the trial Court dated 21.12.2016 & 09.01.2017, respectively, passed in Title Suit No. 5 of 2012, by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa.

2. The plaintiff-landlord has filed an eviction suit being Title Suit No. 05 of 2012, under Section 11, Sub-Clause 11(1), 11(c), 11(d) and 11(i) (e) of Jharkhand Building (Lease & Rent) Control Act, praying for eviction of the defendant and for the relief of recovery of arrears of rents.

3. The plaintiff’s case is that the plaintiff is the owner and landlord in respect of three shop rooms standing on municipal holding no. 35, within Ward no. 05 (old), new Ward no. 07 of Chaibasa Municipality Mohalla Tungri. The defendants were the tenant of the plaintiff and the tenancy commenced on 01.08.2010, when a rent agreement was entered into between the parties. The tenancy was as per English calendar month, but the defendant failed to pay the rents and thus, they were liable to be evicted on the ground of defaulter. The plaintiff claimed that he is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 16000/- as an arrear of rent also. It is also the case that the suit premises is required for his son, who wants to open a show room for electronic goods. The plaintiff claimed that he had also filed an eviction suit for evicting the tenants from the shop room nos. 1 & 3, which would be necessary to settle his son, thus; partial eviction will not serve the purpose.

4. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement and had taken a plea that the shop was being run for the last 30 years and the agreement was executed due to pressure given by the plaintiff. Their claim is that the plaintiff used to take grocery items for daily use and at the end of the month, calculation use to be made and the rent was used to be adjusted against the price of the grocery items. It is stated that in case, the amount fell short, defendant no. 1 used to pay the balance amount and in case the amount of articles exceeded the rate of rent, the plaintiff’s father or the plaintiff used to pay the excess amount in cash. They further stated that no amount of rent is due.

5. On the said pleadings, 12 issues were framed by the trial Court, out of which, issue nos. (V) to (X) are important, which are quoted herein-below:-

“(I) to (IV)….

(V) Whether plaintiff has got bonafide personal necessity to evict the defendant from the suit property on that ground?

(VI) Whether defendant is a defaulter and is liable to be evicted from the suit property on that ground?

(VII) Whether defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit premises on the ground of expiry of period of tenancy?

(VIII) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 800/- per month towards arrears of rent due from the month of August, 2010?

(IX) Whether defendant had deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with the father of the plaintiff late K.K. Chakraborty at the inception of the tenancy?

(X) Whether the rent used to be adjusted against the price of the grocery articles purchased by plaintiff from defendant’s shop?”

6. The trial court decided issue no. (V), i.e. the issue of personal necessity against the plaintiff. The issues of default and eviction on the expiry of the period of tenancy were also decided against the plaintiff. The Court held that the plaintiff admitted that the rent was being adjusted against the price of grocery items. Thus, it is not the case of default.

7. So far as issue nos. (VIII) & (IX) are concerned, which relate to recovery of arrears of rent from the month of August, 2010, the trial Court held that the plaintiff has proved that he is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 800/-per month towards arrears of rent due from the month