Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J. - (1.) This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 11.6.2014 and decree dated 26.6.2014 passed and signed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in connection with Title Appeal No. 52 of 2012 whereby the judgment dated 23.7.2012 and decree dated 6.8.2012 passed and signed by learned 2nd Additional Munsif, Ranchi in connection with Title Suit No. 25 of 2004 has been upheld. The defendants -appellants were substituted after death of original defendant Ramchandra Tibrewal since he died during pendency of the suit. The respondent is the plaintiff. The facts, in brief, is that the plaintiff brought a suit for evicting the defendants from the suit premises, which is pucca shop, area measuring 228 sq. ft. being a portion of M.S. Plot No. 1565, Ranchi Municipal Corporation No. 1287 within Ward No. VI situated at the Cart Sarai Road, Upper Bazar, P.S. -Kotwali, District -Ranchi, well described in the plaints, on the following grounds: - - (i)'The defendants became defaulter in making payment of rent from the month of September, 2004 and therefore, they are liable to be evicted therefrom under Sec. 11(i)(d) of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'BBC Act') (ii) The plaintiff is in bona fide need of the suit premises for her personal use and occupation because she is having source of income from rent only which is meager for her subsistence and in order to enhance her income she requires the suit premises for her personal use and occupation for commencing a business to be done by her son Manoj Kumar Joshi.
(2.) It is disclosed that at the time of filing of the suit the defendants were paying monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 750/ - per month. Since the defendants have become defaulter from making payment of rent from the month of September, 2004, the plaintiff has also sought for a decree for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 36,000/ -.
(3.) The defendants -appellants filed their written statement and vehemently opposed the averment made by the plaintiff that the defendants have become defaulter and they have not tendered rent from the month of September, 2004. In support of pleadings, the defendants had adduced evidence and produced document before the trial court. After framing the issue required under Sec. 11(i)(d) of the BBC Act the learned trial court has decided the issue in favour of the defendants and rejected ground No. 1 relied upon by the plaintiff. So far second ground of personal necessity is concerned, the defendants have opposed the same by making averment in their written statement that the plaintiff is having premises other than the suit premises for her bona fide and personal use and that Manoj Kumar Joshi is not her son and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to repossess the suit premises for her personal use and occupation. It was also contended before the courts below that pleading of the plaintiff is completely silent on the point that Manoj Kumar Joshi happens to be adopted son of plaintiff and she requires the suit premises for engaging said adopted son. The plaintiff has led evidence beyond the pleadings to which the courts below have accepted and decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, substantial question of law is required to be formulated for just and proper decision of this appeal.;