IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.274 of 2008 ---- M/s Bedding Store through its Proprietor Md..Shabbir Ahmad alias Md. Sabir son of Late Gulam Mustaf, resident of Mohalla Khazanchi Hat, P.S. K. Hat, Sahayak, District Purnia. -- Defendant-Appellant-Appellant. Versus 1(a) Sandhiya Jaipuriyar wife of deceased sole respondent Shailendra Prasad Jaipuriyar 1 (b). Chhitig Jaipuriyar son of deceased sole respondent Shailendra Prasad Jaipuriyar 1(c). Tusarika Jaipuriyar daughter of deceased sole respondent Shailendra Prasad Jaipuriyar, All resident of Bhatta Kalibari Chowk, P.S.K.Hat, District Purnia. -Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents ----- For the appellant : M/s Md. Sabir & Anil Kumar Saxena, Advocates For the respondents : M/s P.K.Jaipuriyar & Anshuman Jaipuriyar, Advocates 03. 28.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This second appeal has been filed by sole defendant- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No.17 of 1999 which was filed by the sole original plaintiff-respondent-respondent for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises detailed in Schedule A of the plaint on the grounds of default in payment of rent by the defendant and also for arrears of rent as detailed in Schedule B of the plaint and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said eviction suit was decreed on contest by the learned Munsif Sadar, Purnea vide his judgment and decree dated 23.02.2005. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant filed Eviction Appeal No.03 of 2005 which was - 2 - dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court –III, Purnea vide his judgment and decree dated 17.06.2008. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted and the only question is with regard to default in payment of rent. The learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties came to specific conclusion that it has been fully proved that defendant used to tender/remit rent to the original plaintiff for which several rent receipts and money orders had been produced, but for the period during September 1998 to February, 1999, neither rent receipts, nor money order receipts for several months had been produced which clearly showed that the defendant was defaulter in payment of rent for at least two months. 6. So far the plea of defendant that the original plaintiff did not accept rent due to the shortage of the printed rent receipt book is concerned, it was found to have been falsified by Ext.-1 series, the printed rent receipts filed by the original plaintiff-respondent disclosing that several blank rent receipts were available and hence there was no question of any shortage of printed rent receipts. 7. The aforesaid findings of the learned courts below are concurrent findings of facts and this court sitting in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot legally - 3 - interfere in such findings. Furthermore, 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 at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)