Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. The defendants are the appellants against the judgment of affirmance. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10-4-2000, passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Samastipur, in Eviction Appeal No. 6/1992/2/ 2000 (Laxmi Narian Lal @ Laxmi Narayan Lal and Ors. V/s. Ramesh Chandra Purbey), whereby the appeal at the instance of the defendants has been dismissed and the judgment dated 29-2-1992, passed by the learned Munsif, Civil Court, Rosera, in T.S. No. 84 of 1982 (Ramesh Chandra Purbey V/s. Most. Chandra Kala Devi), and the consequent decree has been upheld. 2. The plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit property. According to the plaitiffs case as set out in the plaint, he had inducted the defendants in the suit property as tenants in 1957 on a monthly rental of Rs. 11.00 . Surya Narayan Lal was the common ancestor of the defendants, and was the Patwari of Ram Bilas Purbey, the ex-intermediary. Surya Narayan Lal was resident of a different place, and had come over to Rosera in the service of the ex-mediary. He had no house of his own. After vesting of Jamindari in 1955, Surya Narayan Lal was rendered homeless. Therefore, he had requested the plaintiffs to let out the suit premises to him for residential purpose, and tenacy had accordingly commenced in 1957. According to the further averments in the plaint, the defendants had last paid the rent up to December 1979, and stopped paying rent with effect from January 1980. The plaintiffs, therefore, instituted the suit on 20-9-1982 for the following reliefs: (a) That on consideration of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, a decree for eviction of the defendants from the disputed house mentioned in schedule No. 2 be kindly passed and the defendants be kindly given a time to vacate the disputed house otherwise the plaintiff be given possession through the process of Court, (b) That a decree for Rs. 352.00 as the dues of the house rent and also further rents by way of damages for use and occupation be kindly passed and be also ordered further rents at the same rate or as adjudged by the Court be kindly passed, (c) That a decree for cost be kindly passed against the defendants in favour of plaintiff, (d) That a decree for any other relief or reliefs, the Court thinks fit be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 3. The defendants entered appearance and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and also setup title adverse to the plaintiff. 4. The parties led exhaustive evidence before the trial Court, and on consideration of the entire materials on record decreed the suit. It has been held that the plaintiff has been able to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant. The defendants have defaulted in payment of rent since January 1980. The trial Court also held that the defendants had failed to prove their title. The defendants appeal has been dismissed by the aforesaid judgment, and the learned Court of appeal below has affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the defendants. 5. While assailing the validity of the impugned judgment, learned Counsel for the defendants-appellants have submitted only one submission, namely, this being an eviction suit, the Courts below could not have gone into the question of title of the parties in a detailed manner without payment of Court fee. In his submission, the only legal consequence is that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter should be remitted to the trial Court for a fresh judgment in accordance with law after a direction to the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem Court fee. He relies on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, reported in 1985 PLJR 358 (Sheo Shankar Prasad V/s. Barhan Mistry). He has also relied on a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1985 PLJR 891 (Paragraph 18) (Raghubar Dayal Prasad V/s. Ramekbal Sah). 6. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff respondent has submitted in opposition that it is manifest from the averments made in the plaint, the relief sought for, and the findings of the Court below that it was a suit for eviction on the ground of default. 6. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff respondent has submitted in opposition that it is manifest from the averments made in the plaint, the relief sought for, and the findings of the Court below that it was a suit for eviction on the ground of default. The trial Court has gone into question of title incidentally and that too because of the defendants case. He relies upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1999(3) PLJR 923 (Sarkar Sharan and Ors. V/s. Raw Prasad Gupta). He next submits that the Court fee is determined on the basis of the statement made in the plaint, and not the written statement, nor on the basis of the result of the suit. He submits that the judgment of this Court in Sheo Shankar Prasad V/s. Barhan Mistry (Supra), has been over-ruled by the Supreme Court in -- (Ram Naran Prasad and Anr. V/s. Atul Chander Mitra and Ors.). He next submits that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that this appeal is fit to be dismissed. The issues are concluded by concurrent finding of facts which binds this Court. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff had inducted the defendants as tenants in 1957 on a monthly rental of Rs. 11.00 per month. The defendants paid rent up to december 1979, and stopped paying rent since January 1980. It has further been held that the case of settlement and title adverse to the plaintiff set up by the defendants is baseless and false The defendants case is a cookedup story to resist the plaintiffs prayer for eviction. 8. Insofar as the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants is concerned ! that the Courts below have gone into the question of title without calling upon the parties to pay the ad valorem Court fee, is untenable. Law is well settled that payment of Court fee is determined on the basis of the averments made in the plaint, and not on the basis of the statements made in the written statement, nor on the basis of the conclusion of the case. Law is well settled that payment of Court fee is determined on the basis of the averments made in the plaint, and not on the basis of the statements made in the written statement, nor on the basis of the conclusion of the case. In the present case, I am convinced on the basis of the averments made in the plaint that it was basically a suit for eviction under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act on the ground of default, and the reference to the plaintiffs title was made in the plaint incidentally to show as to in what capacity the plaintiff had created the tenancy. Furthermore, the trial Court had to go into the question of title because the defendants denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, and had set up title with respect to the suit property adverse to the plaintiff. The judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sheo Shanker Prasad V/s. Barhan Mistry (Supra) has been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Narain Prasad V/s. Atul Chandra Mitra, and the latter fully supports the contention advanced on behalf of the respondent. In any case, on a perusal of the judgments of the Courts below, I am convinced that the trial Court had gone into the question of title incidentally, and the too because of the defendants case. The respondents case is supported by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 1999(3) PLJR 923 (Sarkar Sharanv. Ram Prasad Gupta). That was a case relating to eviction under the Bihar Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. It has been held therein that if such questions of title is not allowed to be decided in eviction proceeding under Sec. 14 of the B.B.C. Act, then no eviction suit can be allowed on the false plea of title set up by a third party. The learned Court of appeal below has held in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment that plaintiff has been able to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In that view of the matter, there is no warrant in law to remit the case back to the trial Court for fresh judgment after payment of ad valorem Court fee. In that view of the matter, there is no warrant in law to remit the case back to the trial Court for fresh judgment after payment of ad valorem Court fee. This is clearly supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Narain Prasad v. Atul Chander Mitra (Supra). 9. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which needs adjudication by this Court.