IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.108 of 2007 1. Rashida Khanam @ Bibi Rashida Khatoon, wife of Late Md. Suleman Khan. 2. Md. Imran Khan @ Imran Khan 3. Md. Rejwan Khan 4. Md. Jishan Khan @ Jishan Khan 5. Md. Nemal Khan @ Neman Khan 6. Md. Aman Khan @ Aman Khan All sons of Late Md. Suleman Khan, proprietor M/s Prince shoes, resident of Maszid Gumti No.3, Bhikhanpur, Ishachak, District Bhagalpur. ………..Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. Versus Taranjit Singh, son of Sri Kuldeep Singh, resident of Mohalla Gurudwara Road, P.S. Kotwali, District Bhagalpur. ………Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent. For the appellants : M/s Ajay Kumar Singh and Md. S.M. Asraf, Advocates. For the respondent : None. ----------- 07/ 19.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.34 of 1997 which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent for eviction of the defendants-appellants from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent by defendants and bonafide personal requirement of the plaintiff. The said suit was decreed only on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendants vide judgment and decree dated 30.01.2004 passed by learned Munsif-II, Bhagalpur. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the 2 trial court the defendants-appellants filed Title Appeal No.08 of 2004 which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Bhagalpur vide his judgment and decree dated 28.03.2007. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellants vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, but from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted and it is also admitted that rents of several months were not paid by the defendants to the plaintiff in the next subsequent month. On the other hand, the claim of the defendants is that there was a practice from the very beginning that rent of two months were to be paid in the third month such as rent for January 1997 and February 1997 were paid in March 1997 and rent of March 1997 and April 1997 were paid in May 1997 and so on and so forth. 6. In support of the said contention no agreement was brought on record although the said term not being in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act 1982, it had to be specifically agreed upon by the parties to show that the rents were being so paid in accordance with the terms of the agreement between the parties, but the details of any such agreement was neither pleaded nor proved. It is thus quite apparent that the defendants have not 3 deposited rents for several months in accordance with the provisions of law and as such had rendered themselves defaulters in the eye of law. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the learned courts below had completely ignored their pleading that the father of the plaintiff was the original owner of the suit premises and had earlier filed Title Suit No.16 of 1996 for eviction of the defendants, but the same suit was withdrawn by him on 14.09.1996 after a compromise between them with regard to enhancement of rent. It is further stated that the plaintiff had claimed that immediately after withdrawal of the earlier suit, there was a partition in the family and the suit premises fell in the share of the plaintiff who thereafter filed a fresh suit for eviction which clearly shows malafide on the part of the plaintiff. However, in any view of the matter the defendants had to pay rent of the suit premises of which they were admittedly the tenants either to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff’s father, but from the materials on record as discussed above it is quite apparent that they defaulted in payment of rent for several months and hence they became defaulters. Furthermore question of default is a question of fact regarding which both the learned courts below have arrived at concurrent findings. Hence, there is no occasion for this court to interfere with such findings of the courts below in the instant second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. In the said circumstances, this court does not find 4 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. )