IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.233 of 2005 Md. Mokhtar Ahmad son of late Haji Mohamad Ayub resident of Kazi Mohalla P.O. + P.S. Aurangabad District. Aurangabad Defendant- Appellant- Appellant Versus Md Kalimudidn son of late Abdul Gaffar resident of Purani Kaji Mohalla P.S. + District Aurangabad Plaintiff- Respondent - Respondent ----------- For the appellant: Mr Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate For the respondent: None ----------- 05 09.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole defendant- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit no.01 of 2001 which was filed by the sole plaintiff- respondent-respondent for eviction of the defendant- appellant-appellant from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff as well as default in payment of rent by the defendant. 4. The said eviction suit was decreed on contest by the learned Munsif, Aurangabad vide his judgment and decree dated 28.02.2003. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant filed Eviction Appeal no.01 of 2003 which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge V, Aurangabad, vide his judgment and decree dated 31.05.2005. 5. From the arguments of the parties as well as from the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that both the learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties in detail, came to - 2 - the specific findings that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also found that the plaintiff who was the purchaser from admitted original owner was earlier himself a tenant in another shop in which he was doing business and at the instance of owner of that shop he had to vacate the shop room and hence he required the suit premises involved in the instant case for his personal requirement. Accordingly it has been held by the learned courts below that the plaintiff-respondent reasonably and bonafidely was in the requirement of the suit premises for starting his own business. The learned courts below after considering money order coupons and other relevant materials came to the specific conclusion that the defendant was also defaulter in payment of rent since September, 1988 for several two months and accordingly he had become defaulter liable to be evicted. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also taken the plea that no finding with regard to partial eviction has been given by the learned courts below. However, the law is well settled in this regard that when an eviction suit is decreed on both grounds of personal necessity and default, there is no requirement for giving any finding with regard to partial eviction. Furthermore it is manifest from the judgment of the learned courts below that they were aware of the said issue and had found that the plaintiff had requirement of the entire suit premises and hence compliance of the specific provision of law is complete. Furthermore the aforesaid findings of the learned courts below are findings of facts and this Court sitting in second appeal under the provision of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure can not legally interfere with such findings. - 3 - 7. 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. (S.N.Hussain,J) shahid