JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha, J. – This second appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 26.9.1983 passed by Shrimati Rajendra Kumari, IXth Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 29/14 of 1982-83 whereby and whereunder the said learned court reversed the judgment and decree dated 15.2.1982 passed by Shri Ramdeo Premjiwan, Additional Munsif, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 62/22 of 1974-81 decreeing the plaintiff-appellant's suit. 2. The plaintiff tiled the aforementioned suit for eviction of the defendents on the ground that be bad purchased the premises in suit from Indra Kumar Tiwari. According to the plaintiff the defendants were inducted as tenants by their vendor on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants had knowledge about the execution of the registered deed of sale dated 14.4.1972 by the aforementioned Indra Kumar Tiwary in his favour but despite thereof the defendants had not paid the rent payable in respect of the premises in suit. 3. The defendants-respondents case on the other hand, was that they took settlement of the land upon which the suit premises is situate from one Jagdishwar Dayal and thereafter a building was constructed by them. 4. The learned trial court decreed the plaintiff-appellant's suit holding inter alia therein that the plaintiff has been able to prove that Indra Kumar Tiwari had constructed the building in question and the defendants have failed to prove that they built the same. It was further held by the learned trial court that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenants by and between Indra Kumar Tiwari and the defendants and further held that as the defendants did not pay the stipulated monthly rent for a period of more than two months they were liable to be evicted in terms of the provision of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 5. On appeal the learned lower appellate court, however, held that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his title. The learned lower appellate court took into consideration that the Hukumnama on the basis of which Indra Kumar Tiwary claimed in respect of the property in question being unregistered and the land in question being Chhaparbandi in nature, no title passed on to him in relation to the land in question. 6. The learned lower appellate court took into consideration that the Hukumnama on the basis of which Indra Kumar Tiwary claimed in respect of the property in question being unregistered and the land in question being Chhaparbandi in nature, no title passed on to him in relation to the land in question. 6. In the instant second appeal three substantial questions of law were formulated at the time of admission:- "(a) Whether the lower appellate court has overlooked the extended definition of Landlord as enacted in clause 'F' of the B.B.C. Act: (b) Whether plaintiff-appellant could be non-suited without proof of a better title by the defendant-respondent; and (c) Whether the respondents could succeed without establishing a better title in themselves or in a 3rd party." 7. Mr. N.K. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the judgment of the learned lower appellate court is vitiated in law in so far as it rejected the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses without assigning cogent reasons therefor. 8. From a perusal of the impugned judgment it appears that the learned lower appellate court did not address itself properly to the main issue. Even if the plaintiff's vendor had no title in respect of the properly in suit but one of the relevant facts that was required for consideration was as to who constructed the building in question. As noticed hereinbefore, the learned trial court took into consideration all the evidences on record and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff's predecessor Indra Kumar Tiwary constructed tile said building. 9. The learned lower appellate court without meeting the reasonings of the Learned trial court rejected the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses simply on the ground that the said witnesses are interested ones. She further declined to consider the effect of the discrepancies in the evidences of the witnesses of the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff has to fall or stand on his legs. In my opinion, as the learned lower appellate court did not address itself properly with regard to the vital question in issue, namely, as to whether the plaintiff's predecessor Indra Kumar Tiwary constructed the building in question, the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court cannot be sustained. 10. It is well known that the testimony of a competent witness cannot be discarded simply on the ground that he is an interested witness. 10. It is well known that the testimony of a competent witness cannot be discarded simply on the ground that he is an interested witness. The plaintiff who purchased the suit properties from Indra Kumar Tiwary was certainly entitled to examine him on the point as to whether the building in question was constructed by him or not. Indra Kumar Tiwary was one of the most competent witnesses to depose on the same issue. 11. As rightly observed by the learned trial court that Indra Kumar Tiwary's evidence is relevant for the purpose of determination of the issue as to whether he constructed the building or not as also for the purpose as to whether there had been a relationship by and between him and the defendant-respondents or not. 12. As the learned lower appellate court has failed to consider the evidences of the competent witnesses simply on the ground that they are interested, in my opinion, she has misdirected herself in law. It was obligatory on her part as first appellate court to analyse the evidences on record and meet the reasons assigned by the learned trial court while reversing its judgment and decree. 13. In the result the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate court is hereby set aside and this second appeal is accordingly allowed and the appeal is remanded to the learned lower appellate court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. 14. As the suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendants-respondents inter alia on the ground of personal necessity, the learned lower appellate court should try to dispose of the appeal as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.