IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.20 of 2005 ---- Ramesh Chandra Singh son of Late Jatadhari Singh, Proprietor of the Shop name and styled as “KITAB GHAR’ Chow Bazar, Azad Chowk, Police Station- Kotwali, Post Office and District-Munger. --Defendant-Appellant-Appellant. Versus Madhuri Devi Bhatnagar, wife of Nawal Kishore Bhatnagar, resident of Mohalla-Naya Gaon, Police Station-Kotwali, District Munger. -- Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent. --- For the appellant : Mr.Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Senior Advocate. M/s Shailendra Dwivedi, Ranjan Kumar Dubey Sangeeta Sharma, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr. Triloki Nath Maitin, Senior Advocate Mr.Harshwardhan Sahay, Advocate. ---- 21. 08.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole defendant- appellant-appellant against the judgments and decree of eviction of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No.06 of 1994 which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent for eviction of the defendant-appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent. 4. The said eviction suit was decreed on contest by the learned Munsif, II, Munger, vide his judgment and decree dated 25.06.2001. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant filed Eviction Appeal No.04 of 2001 which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-cum- F.T.C.No.V, Munger vide his judgment and decree dated - 2 - 27.11.2004. 5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it transpires that the main contention between the parties was with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant as well as default in payment of rent by the defendant-appellant. 6. So far the first question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned, it has been admitted by the defendant that he paid rent to Prakashwati Bhatnagar and from the pleadings and evidence of the parties it is quite apparent that the plaintiff purchased the suit premises from the said Smt. Prakashwati Bhatnagar vide registered sale deed dated 29.08.1983 and sent notice through pleader commissioner (Ext-A) to the defendant with regard to said purchase and rent. The learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties came to the specific conclusion that defendant had paid rent for sometime and there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 7. So far the second question of default in payment of rent is concerned, the learned courts below have thoroughly considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties and it was admitted fact that rent was never regularly paid by the defendant, nor it was deposited in the court every month even during the pendency of the suit, as the claim of defendant-appellant was that there was an implied contract between the parties for payment of rent. But there is - 3 - no material at all to support the said contention of the defendant and the haphazard manner in which the rents were even deposited proved that there was no such implied contract and when the defendant was himself denying any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the plea of implied contract clearly appears to be a lame excuse which has rightly been rejected by the learned courts below. In the said circumstances, the learned courts below was quite justified in coming to the conclusion that defendant-appellant was defaulter in payment of rent for several months. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts 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. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)