IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.62 of 2006 Shiv Prakash Garodia, son of late Mohan Lal Garodia, resident of Mohalla- Amla Tola, P.S. Katihar, District-Katihar. …. Defendant/Appellant/Appellant. Versus Ram Lalji Dhapi Devi, Golchha Charity Trust, through its Power of Attorney Holder, Mahendra Kumar Tater, resident of Main Road, Birat Nagar, Nepal. …. Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent. For the appellant : Mr. Abhay Singh no.1, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Jai Krishna Prasad, Advocate. ----------- 19/ 17.11.2008 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 challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title (Eviction) Suit No. 04 of 1995, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and also for realization of arrears and other ancillary reliefs. 4. The suit was decreed on contest without cost by the learned Munsif, Katihar vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2003, which was challenged by defendant in Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 01 of 2004, which was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No .IV, Katihar vide judgment and decree dated 28.01.2006. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 2 5. From the averments of the parties and material on record, including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the admitted facts are that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff, which is a charitable trust guided by the Hindu Religious Trust Act and the defendant, who is a businessman, is the tenant of plaintiff and that the defendant had paid rent to the plaintiff up till July, 1994. In the said circumstances, the only question to be decided is as to whether the defendant was a defaulter due to non- payment of rent after July, 1994. The claim of the defendant was that he was a businessman having business at several places in India whereas the plaintiff was the Attorney of the Trust residing in Nepal and hence rent was paid on the convenience of the parties in lump sum, which were accepted by the plaintiff earlier. 6. The learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties came to a definite finding that the plaintiff was duly authorized to file the suit and that there was no written agreement between the parties that rent will be paid according to convenience and hence the defendant was liable to pay the rent by the last day of the month next following. If the tender of rent was refused, the same should have been remitted by the post every month to the defendant but the said provision having not been complied after July 1994, it was quite apparent that the defendant had become a defaulter and was liable to be evicted. 7. The learned courts below also found that the evidence of the defendant himself clearly showed that he did not pay rent for any 3 period after July, 1994 and in addition to that the defendant in his deposition as D.W.6 admitted that since no one had come to him demanding house rent after July 1994, the same was not paid by him. In the said circumstances, the learned courts below rightly came to the conclusion that defendant has become defaulter for more than two months and hence he was liable to be evicted from the suit premises. However with regard to the arrears of rent, it was found that during the pendency of the suit the arrears had already been deposited by the defendant through Chalan, which was withdrawn by the plaintiff under the process of law. Hence, no relief with regard to payment of arrears of rent could be granted. 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 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.)