IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.406 of 2009 1. Malti Devi , Wife of Late Munna Prasad. 2. Deepak Kumar, Son of Late Munna Parasad. 3. Milan Kumar, Son of Late Munna Parasad. All Resident of Mohalla- Sadar Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Jamalpur, District- Munger. -Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. Versus Arya Samaj Samittee, Sadar Bazaar, Jamalpur, through its Secretary Jagdish Prasad Arya ,Son of Late Mahadeo Prasad of Mohalla- Jagdishpur, P.S.- Jamalpur, District- Munger. --Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent. ----------- 05. 29.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in support of this appeal. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2009 passed in Eviction Appeal No.05/2004 by Additional District Judge II, Munger affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2004 in Eviction Suit No.11/1994 by Additional Munsif VIIth, Munger. The defendants/tenants is the appellant in this appeal against the judgment of affirmance. The suit has been filed for eviction of the defendant/appellants on the ground of default in payment of rent and the arrears of rent have also been claimed. The defendants in their written statement have denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the 2 plaintiff and defendant and have asserted that they are in possession of the suit property in their own right. The core issue between the parties, therefore, was the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant in between them. Both the courts below have come to a concurrent finding on this issue and have concluded that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and defendants. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff has squarely failed to substantiate his claim of title over the suit property and has not produced any document of title in that regard. The contention, therefore, is that in absence of the documentary evidence establishing the title of the plaintiff, the suit itself could not have been filed by him for eviction against the defendants. It has then been urged that failure of both the courts below in considering this aspect of the matter has vitiated their judgments. The perusal of the judgments of both the courts below shows that the evidence led by both the parties have been considered thoroughly in the light of their submissions and on that basis, the finding has been recorded that there is a 3 relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and the defendants. The documentary evidence e.g. Exhibit 2 to 2 A, (the counterfoils of rent receipts bearing the signature of the original defendant Muna Prasad)alongwith other evidence on record have been rightly believed by both the courts below to reach to the above finding which cannot be said to be perverse in any manner and will be binding upon in the second appeal. In view of the evidence and the finding regarding existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, further probe into the title of the plaintiff/landlord is not required by law and there is no merit in the submission in this regard. There is no substantial questions of law arising for consideration in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh (V.Nath, J.)