Judgment S.N.Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned coun- sel for the three applicants who had filed their respective interlocutory applications dated 17.8.1993, 26.7.1996 and 12.11.1997, respectively, for their substi- tution in place of the sole appellant Kali Prasad who has, admittedly, died on 22.5.1993. 2. Also heard learned counsel for respondent no. 1, who contests the afore- said interlocutory applications and submits that all the aforesaid interlocutory applica- tions are frivolous and illegal and have to be rejected as none of the applicants are the heirs of the sole appellant, nor can they be held to be a tenant of the suit premises under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982. 3. Interlocutory application dated 26.7.1996 (at Flag M) has been filed by one Parwati Devi claiming to be the sister of the sole appellant Kali Prasad. It is also stated that the wife of the deceased Kali Prasad as well as his daughter, namely, Shanti Devi predeceased him and the applicant is the sole heir of the aforesaid deceased appellant and hence she may be substituted in his place. It is not in dispute that immediately after filing of the said interlocutory application, the said applicant Parwati Devi died on 15.11.1996 itself, whereafter none of her heirs filed any petition. In the said circumstances, the interlocutory application for substitution dated 26.7.1996 filed by said Parwati Devi has become infructuous apart from being time-barred. Accordingly, the said interlocutory application is dismissed. 4. Another interlocutory application dated 12.11.1997 (at Flag-R) has been filed by respondent no. 2 Ram Chandra Prasad, who was the son-in-law of the sole appellant Kali Prasad, for being transposed as appellant in his place claiming that his wife, namely, Shanti Devi, who was the only issue of the deceased Kali Prasad, had died issueless in the year 1991. It is further submitted that abovenamed Parwati Devi, sister of Kali Prasad (orginal appellant) executed a registered deed of gift in his favour with respect to her other properties and in those circumstances he had been substituted in place of Parwati Devi in another Partition Suit No. 97 of 1992 pending before the learned 3rd Subordinate Judge, Gaya. It is further submitted that abovenamed Parwati Devi, sister of Kali Prasad (orginal appellant) executed a registered deed of gift in his favour with respect to her other properties and in those circumstances he had been substituted in place of Parwati Devi in another Partition Suit No. 97 of 1992 pending before the learned 3rd Subordinate Judge, Gaya. Neither the deed of gift has been produced in this court nor even the date of the said gift has been mentioned either in the interlocutory application or in the order passed in the partition suit annexed to this interlocutory application and even the relationship of the applicant with the donor has been wrongly mentioned. It is also an admitted fact that the said applicant- respondent no. 2, namely, Ram Chandra Prasad has already died and hence this interlocutory application has become infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. Earlier an interlocutory application was filed within statutory period of limita- tion on 17.8.1993 (at Flag Y) on behalf of one Dhiraj Kumar Verma alias Shyam Babu claiming himself to be the adopted son of Shanti Devi, who was the only issue of the deceased Kali Prasad and hence ac- cording to him he was the only heir and legal representative of the sole appellant Kali Prasad as the daughter and son-in- law of the said sole appellant had already died earlier. It is submitted on behalf of the said applicant that the sole appellant Kali Prasad had only one issue Shanti Devi, who was married to Ram Chandra Prasad, but they had no issue and hence they adopted applicant Dhiraj Kumar Verma as their son at the age of five according to Mitakshra School of Hindu Law. It is further submitted on behalf of the said applicant that the applicants mother Shanti Devi predeceased the sole appellant and her husband also had died and hence the entire right, title and interest of the sole appellant have devolved upon this applicant. It is also submitted on his behalf that the said Kali Prasad had admitted in a docu- ment that applicant Dhiraj Kumar Verma was his adopted grandson. 6. It is also submitted on his behalf that the said Kali Prasad had admitted in a docu- ment that applicant Dhiraj Kumar Verma was his adopted grandson. 6. The requirements of valid adoption under section 6 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) are that the person adopting must have the right to take in adoption, the person giving in adoption must be lawfully capable of doing so, the person adopted must be lawfully capable of being taken in adoption and the conditions related to adoption, in- cluding actual giving and taking of the child with intention of transferring the child from the family of its adoption, must be complied with. Section 8 of the Act provides that a female Hindu, who is of sound mind and is not minor, and who is also not married, or if married, whose marriage has been dissolved or whose husband is dead or has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind, has capacity to take a son or daughter in adoption. 7. In this regard, it has not been brought on record that the condition with respect to actual giving and taking of the child with intent to transfer the child from the family of its birth to the family of its adoption has been complied with as per the rite and customs prevalent under the Hindu Law. Furthermore, the claim of the applicant Dhiraj Kumar Verma is that he had been taken into adoption by Shanti Devi. The said Shanti Devi was admittedly a married woman and at the time of adop- tion her husband was alive and was living with her, hence legally she cannot be deemed to have the right to take or be lawfully capable of taking a son or daugh- ter in adoption, specially when the husband of Shanti Devi, namely, Ram Chandra Prasad in his interlocutory application dated 12.11.1997 has categorically denied that he or his wife had ever taken Dhiraj Kumar Verma in adoption. 8. 8. Mere mention by the sole appellant Kali Prasad in a document that applicant Dhiraj Kumar Verma was his adopted grandson will not entitle the applicant to be declared as his adopted grandson in absence of fulfilment of any requirement as prescribed in law. Furthermore, a grand- father had no right to adopt a grandson and the person, who could have legally adopted him, namely, Ram Chandra Prasad, has specifically denied on affidavit before this court that Dhiraj Kumar Verma was ever adopted by him or his wife Shanti Devi. 9. Furthermore, as pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents, the Death Register (Annexure 1) with regard to Shanti Devi dated 5.5.1991 shows that at the time of death she was 46 years old and hence her year of birth would be around 1945. Furthermore, from the depo- sition of the applicant Dhiraj Kumar Verma alias Shyam Babu dated 1.4.1986 (Annexure 2) it is quite apparent that on that day he was 32 years old and hence his year of birth must be around 1954. The applicant himself has claimed that he was adopted at the age of five years and that would be about the year 1959 when said Shanti Devi would have been only 14 years old and the difference of age between them was only nine years. Hence such adoption is clearly not permissible in the eye of law, specially Sections 6, 8 and 11 of the Act. In the said circumstances, I do not find any merit in this interlocutory application also, which is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. This second appeal has been filed by the tenant-defendant of eviction suit after loosing before both the learned courts below. Plaintiff-respondent no. 1 filed E.S. No. 35 of 1984 for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises on the grounds of default in payment of rent by the defendant-tenant and personal necessity of the plaintiff-landlord for the suit premises and also for arrears of rent. The said suit was decreed by the learned Munsif 1st, Gaya by judgment and decree dated 23.12.1985 which was challenged by the defendant-tenant in T.A. No. 13 of 1986 (20/90) which was dismissed by the learned 8th Additional District Judge, Gaya by judgement and decree dated 18.12.1990. Against the said judgment and decree of affirmance the instant second appeal has been filed by the sole defendant-tenant. 11. Against the said judgment and decree of affirmance the instant second appeal has been filed by the sole defendant-tenant. 11. Admittedly defendant-appellant was a tenant of the suit premises and the plaintiff-respondent had purchased the suit premises from its original owner, whereaf- ter the defendant paid rent to the plaintiff. Both the learned courts below after con- sidering the pleadings of the parties and their respective evidence came to definite findings that a mere Mahadnama alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant would not change their status and relationship unless the title is transferred and hence relationship of landlord and tenant existed between them. Both the learned courts below also arrived at specifc findings that the defendant-appellant was not in possession of the suit premises as part performance of any agreement, rather he was in possession as a tenant and that he was a defaulter in the payment of rent and hence he is liable to be evicted on that ground and is also liable to pay the arrears of rent from January to May, 1984. Against these concurrent findings the sole defend- ant-appellant had filed this Second Appeal. 12. Since the sole appellant has died and all the interlocutory applications for substitution/transposition in his place are found to be without any merit and are dismissed, the entire Second Appeal has become incompetent and is, accordingly, dismissed.