IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.276 of 2009 ----------- 1. Arun Prasad, son of late Ishwar Chand Sah 2. Saraswati Devi, wife of late Ishwar Chand Sah Both residents of Mohalla Marwari Bajar Ward No.6, Town, P.S. P.O. & District Samastipur. ..Defendants-Appellants-Appellants versus 1. Sardar Papinder Singh, son of late Sardar Gulab Singh (alleged to be ) resident of Sri Guru Nanak Singh Sabha Gurudwara, Marwari Bazar, Ward No.6, Town, P.S., P.O. & Diustrict Samastipur …Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1st set. 2. Munna Devi wife of late Munna Lal Sah, resident of Ambedkar Nagar, Ward no.5, Town, P.S., P.O. & District Samastipur 3. Asha Devi, wife of Krishna Kumar, resident of Katki Bajar, Tower Chowk, Darbhanga, P.O., P.S. and District Darbhanga 4. Usha Devi, wife of Bharat Prasad, resident of Handi Bazar Raxaul P.O. and P.S. Raxaul, District East Champaran 5. Gita Devi wife of Vishnu Prasad, resident of Mohalla Takshal Sanghat, Gurudwara Road, Jani Bajar, P.O. and P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas. …Respondents –Respondents-Respondents 2nd set. ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bajarangi Lal, Advocate. For Respondent no.1: Mr. S.S. Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate. For other Respondents: None ------- 06/ 23.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent no 1. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants- appellants-appellants challenging judgments and decree of both the courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit (Eviction) Suit No.02 of 1986, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent- respondent no.1 for eviction of the defendants from the suit 2 premises bearing holding no. 58 (Part) Ward No.6 of Samastipur Municipality, detailed in Schedule-II of the plaint on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendants and bona fide personal requirement of the plaintiff as well as for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest by Munsif-II, Samastipur vide his judgment and decree dated 30.09.1992. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, defendants-appellants filed Eviction Appeal No. 01 of 1993, which was dismissed on contest by the Additional District Judge-I, Samastipur vide his judgment and decree dated 30.05.2009. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for defendants-appellants vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below on the ground that neither the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises nor he was landlord of the defendants, rather the defendants were the tenants of Udasi Sangat through its Manager Ram Lakhan Das, which was the owner of the suit property, to whom the defendants were paying rent and the suit premises was not part of any Gurudwara bearing holding no.58. Hence it is stated that neither there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties nor legally any question with regard to personal necessity or default in payment of rent could be raised by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants. 3 6. From the arguments of the respective parties as well as from the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree, it is quite apparent that the courts below have very carefully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties and had, thereafter, come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had claimed in paragraph no.2 of the plaint that the suit premises was a shop and a part and parcel of holding no. 58 of ward no.6 of Samastipur Municipality and in paragraph no.13 of their written statement defendants-appellants had clearly admitted the said statement made in the plaint. Furthermore, the evidence on record shows that holding no. 58 was part and parcel of Gurudwara. 7. So far question of ownership of the suit plot is concerned, the defendants might have earlier been paying rent to the said Ram Lakhan Das as Manager of Udasi Sangat, but it is admitted fact that the said Shri Ram Lakhan Das had executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of Guru Nanak Singh Sabha, which represented by the plaintiff. In this connection, it has been found that another eviction suit bearing no. 1 of 1986 was filed by the plaintiff against another tenant Mohan Lal and the said suit was decreed, but the judgment and decree of the trial court was reversed by the lower appellate court in Eviction Appeal No. 15 of 1988. However, when the said judgment of the lower appellate court was challenged by the plaintiff in S.A. No. 286 of 1993, this Court vide its order (Ext. 2A) set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and remanded the matter holding as follows :- 4 “It appears from the pleadings itself that the defendants claim was that he was paying rent to Ram Lakhan Sah, Manager of Udasi Sangat. It has also been admitted by him that the said Ram Lakhan Sah has executed a deed of relinquishment i.e. disclaiming property in suit, but the appellate court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter.” 8. In view of the aforesaid findings of this Court, the court of appeal below has considered the said aspect of the matter in detail and has found that there was sufficient evidence including that of P.Ws. 14,15,16 and 19 to show that the defendants were inducted as tenant of Gurudwara, whereas, P.Ws. 3,4,5, 6,7 and 8 had specifically proved that the defendants were tenants of the plaintiff As against the said evidence, the court of appeal below has found that the defendants had failed to disprove the said claim. 9. Furthermore, either Udasi Sangat or its Manager Ram Lakhan Sah never appeared at any stage of the instant proceeding nor did he file any other case with respect to the suit premises, which also lends support to the specific claim of the plaintiff that after compromise in the proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the Ekrarnama Ladavi, executed by Ram Lakhan Sah, the defendants paid rent, but after some time abstained from paying any rent to the plaintiff. Hence the courts below rightly came to the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the defendants had defaulted in payment of rent and were liable to be evicted from the suit premises on that score alone. 5 10. So far question of bona fide personal requirement of the plaintiff is concerned, it is specifically claimed by the plaintiff that the Gurudwara required a Hall for the devotees, who regularly use to come to attend the functions in the Gurudwara and hence it is quite apparent that the requirement of the plaintiff is not only bona fide and genuine, rather it is also pious and religious. Hence this is a fit case in which the defendants were required to vacate the suit premises immediately. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the 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. )