IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.222 of 2006 Anuj Kumar Sinha @ Anuj Prasad son of late Baldeo Prasad, resident of village Sonsa, P.O. Sonsa, P.S. Rahui, District Nalanda. ……Defendant 2nd party-Respondent 2nd set-Appellant. Versus 1. Mukhatar Ahmad, son of Hazi Mohammad Salauddin 2. Md. Iqbal, son of Mukhatar Ahmad, both residents of Mohalla Chhaju Town, P.S. and P.O. Biharsharif, District Nalanda. …..Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents 1st set. 3. Kapildeo Prasad son of Shiv Shankar Prasad, resident of village Bhadwa, P.O. Etasang, P.S. Rahui, District Nalanda. …Defendant 1st party-Respondent 1st set-Respondent 2nd set. For the appellant : Mr. Bhupendra Narayan Sinha,Advocate. For the respondents : M/s Farookh Ahmad Khan and Amar Nath Singh, Advocates. ----------- 07/ 26.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant- respondent-appellant against the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below. 3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No.10 of 1998, which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents no.1 and 2 for eviction of the defendants on various grounds, including personal necessity of the plaintiffs, default in the payment of rent and subletting by defendant no.1-respondent no.3 in favour of defendant no.2- appellant and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned Munsif, Biharsharif, Nalanda vide his judgment and decree dated 24.12.1999. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the plaintiffs in Eviction Appeal No.02 of 2000, 2 which was allowed on contest with cost by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Nalanda vide his judgment and decree dated 15.09.2006 on the ground of subletting. 5. After hearing the parties and after perusing the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is an admitted case that plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property and earlier defendant no.1 Kapildeo Prasad was their tenant. The point of dispute between the parties is that according to the plaintiffs their tenancy with Kapildeo Prasad defendant no.1 continued but defendant no.1 sublet the suit premises to defendant no.2, whereas the claim of defendant no.2 was that he was not a sub-tenant, rather he was a full fledged tenant of the plaintiffs and hence he cannot be evicted on the ground of subletting. 6. The learned court of appeal below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties came to a definite conclusion that the plaintiffs-appellants had taken all necessary steps for production of defendant no.1 Kapildeo Prasad as a witness in the suit but he did not appear. It was also found that counter foil of the rent receipts issued by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant no.1 till the month of July, 1996 was produced, whereas defendant no.2 could not produce any rent receipt to show that plaintiffs ever accepted rent from him. The learned court of appeal below came to the specific conclusion that plaintiffs had succeeded in proving subletting of the suit premises by defendant no.1 in favour of 3 defendant no.2, whereas defendant no.2 had failed to produce any material to disprove the said claim. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the decision of the learned court of appeal below, which is final court of fact, is covered by findings of fact and this court in a second appeal cannot interfere with such findings. 8. Furthermore, 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.)