IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.197 of 2006 HANUMAN SAH Versus SHAMBHU PRASAD & ORS. ----------- 07/ 09.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This second appeal has been filed by defendant–respondent- appellant challenging the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 46 of 1986, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-appellant-respondent no.1 for eviction of defendants from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity. The defendants contested the suit claiming that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, rather the defendants themselves were owners of the suit premises and as such there was no question of any personal necessity, etc. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif-II, Darbhanga vide his judgment and decree dated 30.09.1992, which was challenged by the plaintiff in Eviction Appeal No 06 of 1992. However, the said eviction appeal was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.-V, Darbhanga vide his judgment and decree dated 15.07.2006 setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court and decreeing the suit and claim of the plaintiff. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below the instant second appeal has been filed. The learned court of appeal below has considered the matter in detail and has also gone into the question of title incidentally and had 2 found that although defendant no.1 had claimed that the suit premises belonged to him and his mother but no document to support the said claim was produced by them nor even any municipal tax receipt or government receipt in their name had been produced. On the other hand, the claim of the plaintiff was that Bula Kuer widow of Baiju Lal Sah had gifted the said property by a deed of the year 1935 to Rameshwar Prasad and his other brothers. The learned lower appellate court had rightly not gone into the validity of the said gift and came to the conclusion that Exts. 1 and 1/E, which were the receipts of Corporation with respect to payment of holding tax and Ext. 2 series-the government rent receipts as well as the Assessment Register (Ext.4) along with other evidence oral and documentary fully proved that the plaintiff’s case had substance. It was also found that in the said Assessment Register the name of the plaintiff was recorded as owner, whereas the name of defendant was recorded as tenant for the rent of Rs.9.00 per month and Rs.4.00 per month, respectively. Accordingly, after considering the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, including witnesses, the learned court of appeal below came to the conclusion that the claim of plaintiff with respect to relationship of landlord and tenant was well proved. So far the question of personal necessity of the plaintiff is concerned, the learned court of appeal below has also considered the same and after considering the evidence on record has come to a definite finding that the plaintiff had bonafide personal requirement of the suit premises for opening his own shop to enhance his income, as his 3 earning as Advocate Clerk is not sufficient. So far partial eviction is concerned, the learned court of appeal below has also found that partial eviction of the suit premises would not suffice requirement of the plaintiff. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below, nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)