IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.355 of 2004 DR.KRISHNA NANDAN PRASAD Versus JAGADASHRAY GOSWAMI & ORS. ----------- 12/ 19.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. This second appeal has been filed by defendant-appellant- appellant challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below by which the defendant was directed to be evicted. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 05 of 1996 which was filed by plaintiffs-respondents-respondents for eviction of the defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendant and personal necessity of plaintiff nos.2 and 4. The said suit was decreed by the learned Additional Munsif-I, Sitamarhi vide judgment and decree dated 22.05.1999 which was challenged by the defendant in Eviction Appeal No.26 of 1999 which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sitamarhi vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.2004. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below the defendant has filed the instant second appeal. From the averments of the parties and materials on record including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is an admitted fact and the dispute is with regard to default and personal necessity. So far as the default is concerned, both the learned courts below had found default from January to 2 April, 1996 as the defendant could not produce any valid evidence to show either payment of rent by tender or by remittance for the said months. So far the question of personal necessity is concerned, the learned courts below had considered the matter also in detail and found that the said plaintiffs were unemployed graduates who wanted to start their own coaching institute in the suit premises containing four rooms. The learned court of appeal below had found that one of the plaintiffs was a male whereas the other was a female and they could start separate coaching for boys and girls and for that purpose the suit premises was just sufficient. The said findings of facts are based on materials on record and thus this court 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. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)