Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. A suit for eviction was filed by the respondent long back in the year 1968 when almost 3 years have passed by this time being Title suit No. 813 of 1968. 2. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that it owned and possessed some house properties in the town of Ranchi, out of which a tin shed standing over the plot No. 1131 holding No. 631 (Portion), ward No. 1 of Ranchi Municipality, situated at Ratu Road, Ranchi, full described in schedule of the plaint was given to the deffendent-appellant on a monthly rental of Rs. 50.00 according to English Cakhdar month. So long relationship was maintained, but the defendant-appellant defaulted in payment of rent since November, 67, arid when for consecutive three months i.e. November "67, December 67 and January 68 rent was not paid inspite of repeated demand, the plaintiff served a notice under Sec. 106 of the T.P. Act for terminating the tenancy, The notice was dated 2.2.1968 and the defendant-appellant was asked to vacate the house within the mid-night of 29.2.1968, but as the defendant-appellant did not vacate, hence this suit. 3. The defendant-appellant contested the suit by filling written statement contending, inter alia , the usual pleas of non-maintainability, non-joinder, waiver and estoppel etc. It was further contended that only a vacant place was given to the defendant over which he constructed the tinshed and he was paying rent formerly at the rate of Rs. 40.00 per month and then on enhanced rent of Rs. 50.00 per month. As vacant land was given to the defendant, Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Evidence) Control Act, 1982, was not applicable in the case and the defendant could not be evicted under the provisions of the said Act. His further contention was that the rent for the month of November, 1967 was given to the plaintiff through his" employee Bhuramal Tibriwal, who on realisation of the rent promised to grant receipt but the same was never given to him, then for the month of December, 1967 he tendered rent through money order which was refused and for the subsequent months also he tendered through money order validly but those were refused. (P.W. 2) 4. (P.W. 2) 4. The original suit was decreed by the 5th Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, by judgment dated 29.11.75, holding that the defendant was defaulter for non payment of rent for the months of November, 67, December, 67 and it was also held that the notice served under Sec. 106 of the T.P. Act was proper and hence, the tenancy was duly terminated by the plaintiff. 5. On appeal being filed by the defendant-appellant, the decree of ejectment was maintained , but it was held that default was in respect of December 67 and February 68. As per Sec. 11 (i)(d) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, a tenant becomes ejectment, if landlord can show that he is defaulter in payment of rent for two months. Then this Second Appeal was filed at the time of admission, following point of substantial question of law was formulated by order dated 14.10.1982.:- Whether the court below in appeal has erred in holding that the appellant defaulted in paying the rent for the month of December 67 and February 68 when the case" as made out in the plaint was that the defendant was defaulter in respect of November 67, December 67 and January68. 6. It appears that there is chequered history of this case. The suit for ejectment filed in the year 1968 was decided in the 1st appellate court in 1982. Even the Second Appeal is pending before this Court since 1982, that means by this time, 14 years have elapsed while the ejectment suit is of 1968 and thus, the landlord is not getting the fruit of ejectment decree passed in the year 1975, because of the pendency of the appeal. 7. Mr. N.K. Prasad appearing for and on behalf of the defendant-appellant assailed the impugned judgment of the appellate court to the effect that when pleading was in respect of default of payment of rent for November 67, December 67 and January 68, the appellate court erred in holding that the defendant is defaulter for the month of February 68, which is beyond the pleadings. 8. Admittedly, the ejectment suit was filed in the year 1968 in.the month of April and the second para of plaint runs as follows:- 2. 8. Admittedly, the ejectment suit was filed in the year 1968 in.the month of April and the second para of plaint runs as follows:- 2. That the defendant has not paid the rent of the premises since November, 1967 and when the he did not pay the rent for three months namely November 67, December 67 and January 68 inspite of repeated demands, the plaintiff through his agent and local Principal Officer terminated the tenancy by a notice dated 2.2.1968, in usual course. By that notice, he was asked to quit and vacate by mid night of 29.2.1968, but he did not comply with the same. The plaintiff has, therefore, to file this suit for eviction for non-payment of rent for more than two months. 9. Mr. M.Y. Eqbal by referring to that para of the plaint refuted the submission of Mr. N.K. Prasad that the statement made regarding non-payment of rent for November 67, December 67 and January 68 was mentioned towards termination of tenancy by notice under Sec. 106 of the T.P. Act, but it was specifically stated that the defendant is defaulter for non-payment of rent for more then two months. His further submission is that even if it could be found that the defendant was not defaulter for the specific months as mentioned in the plaint, then also the landlord is entitled to get ejectment, if he can prove that the tenant is defaulter for two months as contemplated under Sec. 11 (i)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act. Even in a pending ejectment suit also, if the ground of defaulter is found after the filing of the ejectment suit, then also the landlord is entitled to get ejectment decree. Practically, the submission of Mr. Eqbal is on the established principle of law that if a tenant is defaulter for two months, then the landlord is entitled to get ejectment as contemplated under Sec. 11 (i)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act. 10. Now coming to the present case, validity or otherwise of termination of tenancy by notice under Sec. 106 of the T.P. Act, is of no avail now as rightly held by the appellate court on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court as reported in -- Dhanapal Chettiar V/s. Yesodai Animal. 10. Now coming to the present case, validity or otherwise of termination of tenancy by notice under Sec. 106 of the T.P. Act, is of no avail now as rightly held by the appellate court on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court as reported in -- Dhanapal Chettiar V/s. Yesodai Animal. The defendant claimed that the paid rent for the month of November 67 to an employee of the plaintiff, but rent receipt was not granted to him. That employee was examined in the case and totally denied of receiving any rent for the month of November 67 and as such the original court held that the defendant was defaulter for the month of November 67 also. But, the appellate court on compassionate ground, assumed that the defendant-appellant may not be held defaulter for the month of November 67 when the plaintiff did not produce his accounts register to prove the fact. The rent for the month December 67 was, admittedly, sent through money order on 1.2.1968, that means after the statutory period when the defendant was a tenant according to English Calendar month, he was to pay/tender the rent for the month of December, 1967 within the last day of January, 1968, but that has not been done in the present case. Mr. N.K. Prasad tried to impress upon this Court that practically, there was no willful default on the part of the defendant. He tendered the rent for the month of December 67 within the month of January 68 and when the plaintiff refused to accept the same, then he tendered through money order on the just expiry of 31st January, 1968 and as such there was no willful default on the part of defendant-appellant and according to him, when there was no willful default then ejectment can, not be granted on the ground of defaulter. He has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court as reported in 1988 PLJR (SC) page 37 (Gowali Charan V/s. Surendra Kumar Khadani and Ors.). From the order of the Apex Court, it appears that this willful default was only mentioned as ejectment was withdrawn on compassionate ground when the defendant had paid entire rent Under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, there is no where mention of word "Willful" while construing defaulter plea. It has been submitted by Mr. From the order of the Apex Court, it appears that this willful default was only mentioned as ejectment was withdrawn on compassionate ground when the defendant had paid entire rent Under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, there is no where mention of word "Willful" while construing defaulter plea. It has been submitted by Mr. Eqbal that in very many cases before this Court, this was pleaded that unless "Willful" default is proved, no ejectment can be granted, but this was not accepted by the court. Again, for the month of January 68 and February 68, rent was tendered by money order at a time including that of December, 67 in the month of April 1968. Thus, the defendant became defaulter for the months of January and February, 1968 also. By what ever Way it can be construed factually and legally it could be found that the defendant was defaulter for two months during the period from November 67 to February 68 and thus, the provision of Sec. 11 (i)(d) of the BiharBuilding (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 comes into effect and the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to get decree of ejectment. 11. I do not find any error of law committed by the learned court below in holding that the defendant-appellant defaulter as contemplated under the Act and on that ground alone, the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to get a decree of ejectment. 12. The appeal is dismissed having no force in it with costs.