D.N. Upadhyay, J. - (1.) This Second Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 24.11.2014 and decree dated 05.12.2014, passed and signed by District Judge - IX, Dhanbad in connection with Title Appeal No. 111/2008 whereby the Judgment dated 02.08.2008 and Decree dated 11.08.2008 passed and signed by 1st Additional Munsif, Dhanbad in connection with Title (Eviction) Suit No. 34/2001, has been affirmed.
(2.) This appeal has been admitted on 12.03.2015 to decide following substantial question of law:- "Whether the learned court-below has considered the right, title and interest of the plaintiff on the basis of any cogent evidence before passing Judgment and Decree in favour of the plaintiff? "
(3.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the original defendant Sudama Singh was inducted as a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in a portion of Schedule-A property on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- per month payable by the defendant to the plaintiff by the first week of each succeeding month according to English calender. The tenanted portion has been described in Schedule-B of the plaint. Besides Schedule-B property, the defendant was also occupying a shop on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-, which was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff after each succeeding month according to English Calender. The dispute regarding payment of monthly rent arisen and, therefore, a Panchayati was held on 09.11.1998 and said Panchayati was attended by the plaintiff as well as defendant. It was decided by the Panches that the defendant shall pay monthly rent for the tenanted premises regularly to the plaintiff. The decision was reduced to writing, acknowledged by both the parties and that has been proved as Exhibit-2. The further case of the plaintiff is that in spite of settlement arrived at between the parties, the defendant failed to pay monthly rent against Schedule-B premises from the month of December, 1998 and in spite of repeated request and demand made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay rent and has become defaulter in the eye of law. The plaintiff has further made out a case that due to expansion in the family, the said premises is also required for his personal use and occupation and it was also brought to the notice of defendant and request was made to vacate the suit premises. On 23.10.2000, when the plaintiff demanded rent from the defendant, sons of the defendant hurled threat to the plaintiff with dire consequences. The plaintiff has contended that partial eviction from Schedule-B premises will not fulfil the requirement, hence the plaintiff requires the entire Schedule-B premises for his personal bona fide use and occupation. Due to dispute prevailing between the parties, criminal cases were also instituted and lastly in the month of December, 2000, the defendant agreed to vacate the suit premises by March, 2001 and he along with his family would shift in his own house which is situated towards southern side of the tenanted premises but he did not stick to his promise and hence cause of action for the present suit arose on and from December, 1998 and on the date 30.04.2001 when the defendant refused to vacate the tenanted premises. The plaintiff has also claimed arrears of rent to the extent of Rs.7,800/- as described under Schedule-C of the plaint.;