JUDGMENT Gumsharan Sharma, J. 1. Plaintiff and defendant in Title Suit No. 34 of 1983 were full brothers. Subject matter of suit was a house bearing holding No. 110, situated in New Sitaramdera (sic) of Jamshedpur town. 2. Plaintiff claimed to have purchased holding No. 121 in Courts auction sale held on 15.3.1958, in Execution Case No. 521 of 1957, pursuant to decree passed in Title (Mortgage) Suit No. 29 of 1957 and got possession through processes of Court on 29.6.1958. His name was mutated in the records of superior landlord, namely, M/s. TISCO Limited. 3. Subsequently under the new scheme of M/s. TISCO Limited, plaintiff was allotted holding No. 110, in lieu of old holding No. 121. He also obtained permission for construction of new single storied building and made constructions. He was always paying ground rent to the superior landlord against receipts. 4. After enforcement of Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972, pursuant to notice issued by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, plaintiff also got a registered lease deed executed by Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum in his favour. 5. According to plaintiff, defendant was his full brother and was permitted to live in one room with kitchen, described in Schedule B to the plaint, on payment of monthly rental of Rs. 50/-. 6. Plaintiff filed present suit for his eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent as also for personal necessity under the provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. 7. Plaintiff failed to establish relationship of landlord and tenant between him and his brother, who was defendant in the suit 8. However, trial Court incidentally considered question of title and prima facie found that plaintiff was absolute owner of the suit holding No. 110 and held that defendant was merely a licencee. 9. It is a relevant to State that defendant produced an unregistered award of September, 1978 (Exhibit E) made by Vishwakarma Samaj, Jamshedpur, wherein both plaintiff and defendant were held to be entitled to half and half share in Schedule A house (holding No. 110), but the said award was neither got registered nor any step was taken for making it Rule of Court. 10. 10. Trial Court having found plaintiff to be absolute owner of the suit holding, granted equitable relief to him, under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and decreed the suit in part directing defendant to vacate the suit premises, described in Schedule B to the plaint. 11. Defendant filed Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 20 of 1989, which was allowed by impugned judgment dated 10.9.1992. Trial Courts decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed. 12. First appellate Court observed that plaintiff did not come in suit with clean hands, so he was not entitled to equitable relief under Order VII. Rule 7 of the Code, without making proper valuation of the suit premises and paying ad valorem Court fee thereon. 13. This Court after admission of present Second Appeal directed trial Court to make enquiry regarding proper valuation of the suit premises and on the basis of said enquiry report permitted plaintiff-appellant herein to make necessary correction both in plaint as well as in memorandum of this appeal and pay required ad valorem Court fee on the said valuation, at Rs. 20,000/-, which was duly complied with. 14. In my view, the first appellate Court failed to consider the reasonings as well as finding of the trial Court regarding plaintiffs interest in holding No. 110 vis-a-vis the interest of defendant. 15. Defendant claimed that Award of Vishwakarma Samaj (Exhibit E) was made in September, 1978, and present suit for eviction was filed in the year 1983 and remained pending till the year 1989, but her did not take any step for making the said Award as Rule of Court. He also did not file any suit for declaration of his 1/2 interest in holding No. 110 and/or partition thereof. 16. In the aforesaid circumstance, I affirm the decision of the trial Court and set aside impugned judgment and decree passed by Court of appeal below. 17. In the result, this appeal is allowed, but without costs. 18. Appeal allowed.