IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.433 of 2008 1. Shri Badan Shah son of Late Beatan Shah 2. Lavkush Shah son of Badan Shah 3. Laxman Shah son of Sardar Shah 4. Hansraj Shah son of Sardar Shah Resident of village Hathdihan, P.S. Dawath, Post Sakari Ram Nagar, District-Rohtas (Sasaram). …Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. V e r s u s 1. Baban Tiwary son of Late Baliram Tiwary Resident of village Hathdihan, P.S. Dawath, Post Sakari Ram Nagar, District-Rohtas. ….Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1st set 2. Sardar Shah son of Late Beetan Shah 3. Ramjee Shah 4. Manoj Shah Both sons of Badan Shah 5. Bharat Shah 6. Sumendra Shah 7. Satputi Shah All sons of Sardar Shah 8. Gambhira Shah 9. Satyendra Shah Both minor sons of Sardar Shah under guardianship of his father Sardar Shah 10. Mukesh Shah minor son of Laxman Shah under the guardianship of Laxman Shah father and guardian. 11. Jeera Devi W/o Sardar Shah 12. Laganbarata Devi W/o Badan Shah. All 2 to 12 residents of village Hathdihan, P.S. Dawath, Post Sakari Ram Nagar, District Rohtas (Sasaram). …Defendants-Appellants-Respondents 2nd Set(Proforma) For the appellants : M/s Radha Mohan Pandit and Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocates. For the respondents : None. ----------- 05/ 16.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendants-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. This matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 04 of 2 1998, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent- respondent no.1 for eviction of the defendants from the suit house on the grounds of personal necessity of the plaintiff as well as default in payment of rent by the defendants and also for realization of arrears of rent for nine months. The aforesaid suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Munsif, Bikramganj, Rohtas vide judgment and decree dated 02.12.2004. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the defendants filed Title Appeal No. 01 of 2005, which was dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. IV, Rohtas vide his judgment and decree dated 10.09.2008. The said judgments and decree of both the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. Both the learned courts below concurrently found that although the defendants had claimed that they were in possession as the owners of the suit property but neither they could produce any document of title nor they could show any cogent and convincing evidence about the alleged oral purchase, nor they were even able to give the date of oral sale. It was also found that no other receipt or order of the authorities concerned with regard to mutation, etc. could be produced by them. On the other hand, it was found that the plaintiff fully proved that the property was his ancestral property and he also produced receipts, etc. to prove his ownership of the property. The 3 learned courts below also came to the conclusion that although there was no documentary evidence of tenancy but the plaintiff was able to prove by the evidence of his witnesses that he had given the suit premises to the defendants on rent of Rs.300.00 per month and the suit premises was in the use and occupation of the defendants as tenants. On the basis of the aforesaid concurrent findings of facts the learned courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Since the defendants were denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, they could not oppose the claim of the plaintiff that rent for the concerned period was not paid by defendants to the plaintiff. Hence, the learned courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the defendants were defaulter. Furthermore, both the learned courts below after considering the materials on record and the respective claims of the parties came to a definite finding that the plaintiff required the suit premises for his bonafide personal requirement. The aforesaid concurrent findings of facts are legal and proper and do not require any interference. No substantial question of law is 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. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)