IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A.No.229 of 2006 ----- 1. Sheo Dulari Devi , W/o Laxmi Narain Sah 2. Amaresh Kumar 3. Mukesh Kumar Sons of Laxmi Narain Sah, residents of village Fateha, P.S. Bachwara, Distt. Begusarai, at present resident of village- Bherouhara, P.S. Tajpur, Distt. Samastipur. --Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. Versus 1. Misrilal Bhandari, S/o Late Chalitar Bhandari, resident of village Bherouhera, P.S. Tajpur, Distt. Samastipur. --Plaintiff-Respondent Ist Party-Respondent Ist Party 2. Chandrakala Devi, D/o Late Laxmi Narain Sah and W/o Ramesh Kumar of village, P.O. and P.S. Khutauna, Distt.Madhubani. 3. Siona Gupta, D/o Laxmi Narain Sah and W/o Manoj Gupta, Secondary Road, Durgapur, District-Durgapur, State-Bengal. Defendants-Substituted-respondents 2nd Party- Respondents 2nd Party. ----------- For the appellants : M/s Yogendra Mishra & Raghunath Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents : M/s Sachchidanand Chaudhary &Love Kush Kumar, Advocates. ----- 06. 11.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendants-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No.07 of 2002 which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent no.1 for eviction of the defendants on the ground of bonafide personal requirement of the suit premises and also on the ground of non- payment of rent to the plaintiff and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned Munsif, I, Samastipur - 2 - vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2004. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants filed Eviction Appeal No.03 of 2004 which was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned District Judge, Samastipur vide judgment and decree dated 18.09.2006. The said judgments and decree are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land. The first point of dispute is as to whether the plaintiff gave suit premises, namely the house with land, to the defendants as claimed by the plaintiff or he gave vacant land to the defendants for making construction and residing as claimed by the defendants. The second point in dispute is as to whether the defendants were the tenants or were the permissive occupants of the suit premises. 6. So far the first question is concerned, both the learned courts below came to the conclusion that Ext.-C produced by the defendants, which is the statement of the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding, may be a substantive evidence in itself, but it cannot be held to be conclusive proof of the matter admitted, especially in view of the fact that the plaintiff had denied in the suit that he had made any such statement and the evidence on record of the eviction suit also proved the plaintiff’s pleadings. In this regard, learned court of appeal below has rightly relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Biswanath Prasad and others Vs. Dwarika Prasad and others, reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court 117. 7. Both the learned courts below have also come to the - 3 - conclusion that the plaintiff had been able to prove by reliable evidence that he had given the land with house to the defendants on rent, whereas the defendants failed to disprove the said claim. Even the original defendant, who is the husband of defendant no.1, had made ambiguous statement, capable of contradictory interpretations in that regard. In the said circumstances, when it was established by evidence that the land with house was given in tenancy by the plaintiff to the defendants, the provision of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act 1982 will definitely be attracted to the instant case. 8. So far the relationship of landlord and tenant is concerned, the learned courts below also came to concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff had proved and established relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The plaintiff had specifically claimed that he was in job at Kharagpur, West Bengal, and hence he inducted the defendant in the suit premises as a tenant, but when after his retirement, he came to his village and asked the defendants to vacate, the defendants refused. Furthermore, no bonafide reason could at all be mentioned by the defendant as to why permissive possession would be given by the plaintiff to the defendants. Furthermore, the learned courts below also arrived at the finding that the defendants did not pay any rent to the plaintiff from February, 2001 and that the plaintiff had bonafide personal requirement of the suit premises and partial eviction of the defendants would not satisfy the requirement of the plaintiff. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does - 4 - 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.)