JUDGMENT : Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. A residential building admittedly belonging to the plaintiff no. 1 was let out on 1.12.75 to the defendants on a monthly rental of Rs.60/-. An unregistered document was executed stating that the lease would continue for three years. No rent, however, was paid. In October, 1978, the present suit was filed for eviction of the defendants on the grounds, (i) that the plaintiffs required the building for their personal need; (ii) that the building was damaged constituting breach of the terms of the tenancy and (iii) that the defendants defaulted in payment of rent within the meaning of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. A money decree for Rs.2255/- as arrears of rent was also prayed for. 2. The defendants denied the plaintiffs allegation of personal necessity and damage to the building. With respect to the alleged default in payment of rent, it was pleaded that there was agreement between the parties for incurring expenditure by way of repairs and accordingly, a sum of Rs.6886/- was spent. In accordance with the terms, the defendants were entitled to get adjustment against arrears of rent. 3. The trial court negatived the plaintiffs' case about personal necessity and breach of the conditions of the lease. The learned Munsif further held that there was an agreement between the parties that the defendants would spend money over the repairs of the house, but the accounts produced by them do not appear to be correct. The Court proceeded to say that since, however, the plaintiffs' case also was not fully correct, the suit was fit to be dismissed. 4. In the lower appellate court, the only question pressed was relating to the defendants being defaulters. The lower appellate court observed that the evidence indicated that some amount was certainly spent in connection with the building with the consent of the plaintiffs and the case of default, therefore, cannot be accepted unless the appellants disclosed the aforementioned amount which had to be adjusted against the rent. 5. The JUDGMENT :s of the two Courts have been placed before me in extenso and I find that the trial court has failed to record categorical findings of fact relevant in the case. The lower appellate court has no attempted to consider the evidence of the parties at all. 5. The JUDGMENT :s of the two Courts have been placed before me in extenso and I find that the trial court has failed to record categorical findings of fact relevant in the case. The lower appellate court has no attempted to consider the evidence of the parties at all. The learned Additional Judge placed the onus to prove the amount which the defendants were entitled by way of adjustment on the plaintiffs and dismissed the action by holding that the plaintiffs did not prove this amount. The trial court held that since "neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants have come to the court with clean hands for seeking relief", the suit was liable to be dismissed. The Courts below are in grave error in assuming that if the plaintiffs have not disclosed the amount which the defendants were entitled to claim against rent the suit was liable to be dismissed. The learned Additional District Judge ought to have considered the entire evidence led by the parties and should have attempted to record necessary findings before proceeding further. I am also of the view that the onus to prove the actual amount to which the defendants will be entitled to claim against the arrears are on them. The case, therefore, requires a reconsideration, by the lower appellate court. 6. Mr. Sukumar Sinha, appearing in support of the appeal, placed great reliance on the decision in M.N. Roy v. Nand Kishore Kakkar A.I.R. 1982 Patna 328, and contended that in view of the findings of the court below the suit ought to be decreed here. I do not think, this is correct, Mr. Sinha is of course right in relying upon the observations in the aforementioned case so far they may be applicable in the present case, but that will be done only after the disputed facts are disposed of by the court below by recording appropriate findings. Mr. Sinha also has said that the expenditure incurred by the defendants cannot be allowed to be adjusted against arrears in a lump sum. Let us assume that in pursuance of an agreement, simi1ar to the one in the present case, a tenant starts spending money over the construction after rent has not been paid for a period of one year. The conclusion will be that the defendants incurred liability of being evicted much before spending the amount. Let us assume that in pursuance of an agreement, simi1ar to the one in the present case, a tenant starts spending money over the construction after rent has not been paid for a period of one year. The conclusion will be that the defendants incurred liability of being evicted much before spending the amount. The amount spent subsequently cannot save him unless he can prove that from the very beginning the agreement permitted the defendants not to pay the rent and collect the amount in their hands for the purpose of repairs. Another aspect which has been noticed by the trial court is that part of the expenditure which the defendants have incurred in constructing certain rooms cannot be claimed by way of adjustment. The lower appellate court shall take into account all these aspects while deciding the appeal. The parties may also urge that unregistered document of lease cannot be relied upon for proving the breach. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, the decision of the lower appellate courts is set aside and the case is remitted to it for fresh decision in accordance with law on the question as to whether the defendants defaulted in payment of rent within the meaning of the Act. The other questions relating to personal need and breach of the terms of the contract shall not be reopened. Any observation made by me in the present JUDGMENT : shall not be considered to have decided the disputed questions on merits. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances without cost. Appeal allowed.