1. Heard Mr. Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Sushmita Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant / respondent - appellant challenging the judgment and decree of the learned appellate court below.

3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2013 which was filed by the plaintiffs / appellants - respondents for eviction of sole defendant on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiffs for the suit premises and also on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendant.

4. On 31.01.2023 these following substantial questions of law were formulated while admitting the appeal: -
(i). Whether the rent for the month of October and November having being sent by Money Order in December which was refused by the land lord could be held by appellate court to be a defaulter?
(ii). Whether the judgment of learned appellate court is vitiated on account of non - consideration of the reasonings of learned trial court while reversing its findings?
(iii). Whether the findings of the appellate court is based on the errors of record and non - consideration of material evidence both oral and documentary?
(iv). Whether the finding of the lower appellate court that the plaintiffs were able to prove bonafide personal necessity is vitiated on account of non - consideration of evidences of DW - 2 (paras 5, 6 and 7), DW - 4 (paras 3 to 5), DW - 5 (para 3 and 5), DW - 6 (paras 6 and 12) and PW - 5 (paras 1 and 4 of cross - examination) in that regard.

5. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiff No. 1 being the karta of the joint family let out the suit premises bearing Holding No. 25 (part) situated at Sadar Bazar, Jamalpur to the defendant on monthly rental of Rs.950/- as per English calendar and the defendant had been running his shop of electric goods. The defendant paid rent of the suit premises up to September, 2012 by making signature in the copy of the plaintiff No. 1 but he failed to pay rent of the suit premises to the plaintiffs since October, 2012 up till now despite repeated demands. Further, the case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiff No. 2, who is a young and educated son of plaintiff No. 1 required the suit premises for running his office of Fly Ash Brick business for his employment and to earn his livelihood. Hence, the plaintiff No. 1 has a bonafide personal necessity of the suit premises for self - employment of plaintiff No. 2 and, as such, plaintiff No. 1 also seeks eviction decree of the defendant from the suit premises. The plaintiff No. 1 on 15.01.2013 sent an Advocate notice requesting the defendant to vacate the suit premises and to pay arrears of rent but the defendant neither vacated the suit premises nor paid the arrears of rent and in response, the defendant sent reply dated 28.01.2013 through his lawyer containing all false statements in the said reply to the Advocate's notice and refused to vacate the suit premises. Hence, the plaintiffs have a cause of action to file the suit.

6. On summons the defendant / appellant had filed his written statement in the suit and had denied the claim of the plaintiffs / respondents by filing his written statement. It is contended that the plaintiffs have filed the suit to enhance the rent of the suit premises. Earlier, the plaintiffs had brought Eviction Suit No. 19 of 1986 on the ground of default which was compromised after enhancement of rent from Rs.370/- to Rs.950/-. The defendant denied the assertion made in the plaint that the plaintiffs have got rent up to September, 2012 only. In fact he had paid rent for October, 2012 on 10.11.2012 and the plaintiffs had promised to give the receipt on the other day. But when the defendant approached the plaintiffs for the receipt of the month of October, 2012, then plaintiffs told the defendant that he has to pay "pagri" for the premises to the tune of Rs.1 lakhs and enhanced rental of Rs.2000/- per month. On being apprehen