IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.397 of 1999 1.Rangila Ray . 2.Ramayan Ray. Both Sons of Late Ramgun Ray @ Ramgun Raut. Both R/o Village- Lauwa Khurd, P.O. –Saraiya, P.S.- Baniapur, District- Saran. ----Plaitniffs- Respondents-Appellants. Versus 1.Bansi Singh, Son of Parikshan Singh. 2.Rameshwar Singh. 3.Bikrama Singh. 4. Ranjeet Singh. Both Sons of Bansi Singh. All are resident of village- Lauwa Terhighat, P.O.- Lauwa Via Baniapur, P.S.- Baniapur, District- Saran. -Defendants-Appellants-Respondents. ----------- 10. 13.10.2011 Heard Mr. Nagendra Rai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. S.S.Dwivedi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.05.1999 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge II, Chapra, Saran in T.A.No. 29/86/66/86 reversing the judgment and decree dated 22.02.1986 passed by Munsif III, Chapra, Saran in T.S.No. 2 01/1984. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit praying for eviction of the defendants from the suit property. The plaintiffs have claimed the suit property by purchase in the year 1960-61 and thereafter to have made construction of shops upon the same. It is their case that the defendants have been inducted as tenant in the suit on monthly rent basis but in view of default in payment of rent and alterations made by them in the suit shop, the plaintiffs have been compelled to file the suit for eviction. The defendants, however, in their written statement denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and have asserted their own title over the suit shop by virtue of their purchase. The trial court after considering the pleadings and evidence on record decreed the suit but on appeal the said judgment and decree was reversed and the appellate court after considering the evidence of the rival parties as well as their submissions has come to the finding that there does not exist the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently argued that the finding by the appellate court below cannot be sustained in law because the 3 reasoning assigned by the trial court for granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff have not been considered which consideration is mandatory in view of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 13 C.P.C. It has been further urged that the question of title has been gone into in a full- fledged manner and in such a case the decree for eviction can be granted in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of title even when the relationship of landlord and tenant could not be established. The learned counsel in the course of developing his submission has further urged that the judgment of the appellate court also suffers from the vice that it has made out a third case for the parties by making observation that they should file a suit for partition, ignoring the fact that both the parties have accepted the partition and have claimed specific portions to have been allotted in the shares of their respective vendors. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is also that the judgment of the appellate court is vitiated as it has not considered the well settled principles of law, justice and equity and has wrongly reversed the findings of the trial court. 4. The perusal of the judgment of the appellate court shows that it has recorded the finding regarding the absence 4 of relationship of landlord and tenant on the basis of evidence of the rival parties after fully considering the pleadings, evidence and submissions of the parties. Being the final court of fact, the appellate court has the jurisdiction to record a contrary finding of fact on the basis of reappraisal of evidence and not alluding to the reasonings assigned by the trial court cannot be momentous enough to upset a well considered finding of the appellate court. The appellate court was well within its rights to reconsider the issues arising in the suit in view of the rival submissions and record its findings contrary to that of the trial court and in the process it was not necessary for the appellate court to specifically mention all the reasonings of the trial court and meet the same particularly when the reasons given by the appellate court are cogent enough to justify its findings. So far as the issue of consideration of the question of title in full-fledged manner it appears that no issue with regard to determination of question of title was framed. In a suit for eviction the question of title can be incidentally gone into by the Court while determining the relationship of landlord and tenant. There is nothing in the judgment of both the court below to show that the question of title was considered 5 in a full-fledged manner by framing a separate issue in that regard. Moreover, in view of the judgment of the apex court reported in AIR 2002 SC 220 in a suit for eviction the question of title is not material rather it is the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, which is sine qua non for granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The submission of the learned counsel regarding making out a third case does not appear to be correct because the observation by the appellate court was not by way of making out a third case having any impact on the decision of the core issue regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. It appears to be merely a wishful observation of the appellate court for the parties to get their dispute regarding purchase of specific portions determined in a suit for partition. The issues arising between the parties are concluded by the findings of fact. 5. There appears to be no substantial question of law involved in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)