JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. The appellants are the defendants who have preferred the instant appeal against the judgment and decree passed in first appeal whereby and whereunder, the judgment decreed in favour of the plaintiff passed by the trial court has been affirmed.

2. An eviction suit was filed by the plaintiff with respect to the suit property as detailed in the plaint which happens to be the two godowns along with one shop room under Ranchi Municipal Corporation.

3. As per the Plaintiff’s case the defendant was a month to month tenant under the plaintiff’s vendor with respect to the suit property on a rent of Rs. 255/- per month. After the sale of the property by the vendor-Manmohan Kedia to the plaintiff-Hargovind Singh, the former immediately after sale on 25.05.2006 informed the defendant about it and requested him to attorn the plaintiff as his landlord and start payment of rent from May, 2006. The plaintiff also informed the defendant verbally about the purchase of the property by him but despite information the defendant did not pay the rent of the premises from May, 2006 and thereby incurred the liability of being evicted on the ground of default in payment of rent under Section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1982). The second ground of eviction taken in the plaint is for personal necessity under Section 11(1)(c) read with Section 14 of the Act, 1982 as the premises was purchased for doing business.

4. The case of the defendant is that Manmohan Kedia, the vendor of the present plaintiff had got absolutely no title over the suit property and had absolutely no right to transfer it in favour of the plaintiff. The second plea is that said sale deed was forged and fabricated and the present suit is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and that the suit for eviction was a counter blast to Title Suit No. 174 of 2007 and to another case he had filed before the Rent Controller being BBC Case No. 18 of 2007. It is further contended that the defendant had been inducted over the suit property on the basis of verbal contract with the great grandfather and grandfather of the plaintiff-vendor with a clear understanding that they will collect the rent as per their convenience. Other pleadings of the plaintiff regarding information about sale, default in payment of rent has been denied. On the point of attornment, the plea of defence is that they came to know about the transfer of the suit property on 22nd October, 2007 from the report of the Circle Officer, Town in B.B.C. Case No. 18 of 2007. It is also disputed that the rent was payable according to English calendar month on or before seventh of each subsequent month. As a matter of fact, the defendant had been inducted according to Hindi calendar month. After knowing about the sale of the suit property in 2007 he requested the plaintiff and both his sons to accept the rent but they declined and so he dispatched the amount on 7.11.2007 with respect to the rent dues for the period 13.5.06 to 24.11.07 by money order which was returned back. On the point of personal necessity, it has been pleaded that the plaintiff was sound businessman with several business establishment at Ranchi and, therefore, there was no personal necessity for the suit property to start his business.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following main issues were framed by the trial court:

Issue No. III - Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants?

Issue No. IV - Whether the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent of the suit premises from May, 06 up-to date and is the defendant liable to be evicted on this ground?

Issue No. V - Whether the plaintiff requires the suit premises reasonably and in good faith for doing business as claimed by him and is the defendant liable to be evicted on this ground?

Issue No VI - Whether partial eviction will satisf