S.Narain, J. - (1.)This appeal arises out of a suit for eviction of the defendant from the southern portion of a house called 'Bamabas' situate in Mohalla Belabagan in Deoghar town within the district of Santhal Paraganas, The deceased tenant-defendant was the original appellant in this Court. It is not in dispute that the defendant-appel- lant was a tenant of the plaintiffs in respect of the southern portion of block of the aforesaid house. It appears that formerly the defendant was in possession of a much larger portion of the house. In 1965, the plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 121 of 1965 for eviction of the defendant on various grounds and on 15-2-1968, a compromise decree was passed. Under the terms of the compromise decree, the defendant agreed to give up possession of the northern block of the house and to continue in possession of the southern block on a monthly rental of Rs. 30/-with effect from 15 March 1968.
(2.)According to the plaintiffs, being dissatisfied with the terms of the compromise and taking advantage of the fact that there was no adult male member in the plaintiffs' family, the defendant started harassing them and in April, 1968 without the permission of the plaintiffs-landlords, demolished the side walls of the old kitchen and constructed a new kitchen on the open terrace in front of the passage room and thus committed breach of the terms of the tenancy, converted a window into a door and a door into a window and by those alterations committed acts of waste and damage causing material deterioration to the suit premises entitling the plaintiffs to evict. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent for the months of May, 1965 to August, 1965. The plaintiffs further alleged that by a registered notice that determined the tenancy, they had asked the defendant to vacate the premises as he has failed to pay the rent due.
(3.)The defendant denied all these allegations of non-payment of rent and unauthorised constructions or alterations in the building. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs being unable to evict the defendant by the earlier title suit were now making further efforts to evict him on untenable grounds. The defendant also pleaded that in view of the compromise decree, the suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent was also barred by res judicata and the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, C. P. C.