IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.24 of 2002 SMT.RADHA MAHESHWARI @ RADHA D Versus SMT.PUSHPA DEVI & ANR ----------- For the Appellant: Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Advocate with Mr. Kunal Tiwary, Advocate. ------------ 8/ 11-08-2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants- respondents-Appellants challenging the order of eviction passed by learned 6th Additional, District Judge, Chapra vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2001 passed in Eviction Appeal No. 4 of 1999. 3. This second appeal arises out of Eviction Suit No. 5 of 1991 which was filed by the plaintiffs- respondents for eviction of defendants- appellants on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendants and bonafide personal requirement of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit premises which is a shop room. 4. So far as the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned, it is admitted and has also been found by both the learned courts below. So far the point raised by the appellants that plaintiffs are only co-sharers and without impleading the other co-sharers the suit was not maintainable, is concerned, the law is well settled that a suit filed by a co-owner for eviction of the tenant for his personal requirement is maintainable. Reference in that regard may be made to two decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pal Singh V. Sunder Singh & Ors., reported in A.I.R. 1989 SC 758 and in the case of Sri Ram Pasricha vs. Jagannath and others, reported in A.I.R. 1976 SC 2335. 2 5. So far the question of default in payment of rent is concerned, both the learned courts below have found that the defendants are not defaulter and against the said findings of the learned lower appellate court, no second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs and hence the said finding has attained finality and it is also not subject matter of this second appeal, which has been filed against the finding with regard to personal necessity. 6. So far the question of personal necessity is concerned, learned court of appeal below after considering the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record has come to a specific finding that the plaintiffs have personal and bonafide requirement of the suit premises for their own use. The said finding is based on finding of facts and no error of record has been pointed out. In the said circumstances finding of personal necessity being a finding of fact is binding upon this Court , specially when there is no legal infirmity in the said finding. 7. So far as the question of partial eviction is concerned, the learned court below has considered the same and has found that the necessity of the plaintiffs would not be satisfied by partial eviction of the defendants from the suit premises as the defendants have failed to disprove the plaintiffs’ claim by pleadings and evidence on that point. 8. In the said circumstances this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal ,which is accordingly dismissed. B.Tiwary/ (S.N. Hussain, J.)