IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No. 346 of 2008 Ram Chandra Sah son of Late Ram Lakhan Sah, resident of Mohalla Kaidrabad, P.O. Lalbagh, P.S. Lalit Narayan Mithila University, District Darbhanga. . ... Defendant-Appellant-Appellant. Versus Dinesh Prasad Sahu son of Late Kedar Nath Sahu, resident of Mohalla Ruhelganj, P.O. Lalbagh, P.S. Lalit Narayan Mithila University, District Darbhanga. ….. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent. For the appellant : M/s Mukesh Kumar Jha and Satya Prakash, Advocates. For the respondent : M/s Ajit Kumar Singh and Shambhunath Suman, Advocates. ----------- 06/ 13.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole defendant-appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No.28 of 2005 which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent for eviction of the defendant-appellant on the grounds of default in payment of rent by the defendant as well as personal necessity of the plaintiff for the suit premises. 4. The said eviction suit was decreed on contest by the learned Munsif-I, Darbhanga vide his judgment and decree dated 26.02.2008 holding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent. However, with regard to the personal necessity it was held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his bonafide requirement of the suit premises. 2 5. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the defendant filed Eviction Appeal No.09 of 2008 which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Darbhanga vide his judgment and decree dated 05.09.2008, affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. 6. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree, it is quite apparent that both the learned courts below had found that the plaintiff had fully proved that the said property was purchased by his uncle vide registered deed of sale dated 14.02.1949 whereafter he constructed tatti house and inducted the father of the defendant as a tenant of the house at the rent of Rs.90.00 per month after executing a kirayanama (Ext.4) dated 30.08.1974 whereafter the rent was enhanced. Both the learned courts below found that the defendant failed to prove his claim that he was a tenant of land only and not of the house. The learned courts below also found from the evidence adduced by the parties that the defendant was the tenant of the suit house and had defaulted in payment of rent and furthermore in his deposition as DW.10 the defendant had admitted in paragraph-40 that he had paid rent up to the year 2004. In the said circumstances, both the learned courts below found that it had been sufficiently proved that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff and had defaulted in payment of rent for more than two months. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court 3 does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned 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. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)