IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.238 of 2009 Shambhu Prasad, son of Sukhari Sah, resident of Mohalla Teliapatti, P.O. and P.S. Motihari, District East Champaran …Defendant-Appellant-Appellant versus Raj Kumar Kedia, son of Baidyanath Kedia, resident of Hendri Bazar, Motihari, P.O. and P.S. Motihari, District East Champaran. …Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent ----------- For the appellant : M/s Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate & Ravi Shankar Dwivedi, Advocates. For the Respondent : None. --------- 03/ 15.10.2009 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. 21 of 1995( 06/2002), which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent- respondent for eviction of the defendant-appellant on the ground of expiry of fixed period of lease, and also for payment of damages as well as for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was contested by the defendant and was finally decreed by the learned trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 20.02.2003. The said judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the defendant-appellant in Eviction Appeal No. 02 of 2003 (01/2006), which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-F.T.C. IV, East Champaran vide his judgment and decree dated 27.03.2009, which is under challenge in the instant second appeal. 2 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was admitted and the rate of rent was also not in dispute. However, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff has wrongly mentioned the boundary of the suit premises in the deed and has given boundary of another shop and the defendant has already vacated the suit land. 6. However, after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the learned courts below came to the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the defendant had not by then vacated the suit premises, the boundary of which was correct. 7. The said findings are concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the learned courts below after full consideration of the pleadings and evidence of the parties. 8. In the said 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. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)