IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No. 221 of 2005 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Gopalganj, District Gopalganj 2. The Inspector of Weight and Measurement Department, Marwari Mohalla-Ward No.8 , now Ward No.7, Gopalganj 3. The Assistant Controller of Weight and Measurement, Gopalganj 4. The Assistant Director-Agriculture-cum-Deputy Controller, Chapra Commissionary, Chapra 5. The Joint Director, Agriculture-cum-Deputy Controller, Weight and Measurement, Seikhpura, Raja Bazar, Patna …..Defendants-Respondents-Appellants. Versus 1. Shyam Sundar Kediya 2. Binod Kumar Kediya, both sons of Sri Jiwan Ram Kedia, resident of Marwari Mohalla, Ward No.8, now Ward No.7 Gopalganj, P.S. and District Gopalganj. …..Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents. For the appellants : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, A.C to A.A.G.III For the respondents : None ----------- 08/ 16.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants in detail. This second appeal has been filed by defendants- respondents-appellants against the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No.15 of 1998 (13/2001), which was filed by plaintiffs-appellants-respondents for eviction of the defendants on the grounds of default in payment of rent by defendants and personal necessity of plaintiffs and for other ancillary reliefs. The aforesaid eviction suit was dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Subordinate Judge-V, Gopalganj vide his judgment and decree dated 20.02.2002. Against the aforesaid 2 judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.13 of 2002 (25/2002), which was allowed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Gopalganj vide his judgment and decree dated 16.10.2004 setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreeing the suit and claim of the plaintiffs. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of both the learned courts below, it transpires that it is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs were the landlords of the suit premises and the defendants were the tenants and there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned court of appeal below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties came to the specific conclusion that admittedly the rent was not paid by the defendants every month on several occasions and in that regard the defendants claimed that there was agreement between the parties for payment of rent at regular intervals, but neither any agreement was produced by the defendants nor they could disclose any terms regarding the mode of payment of rent. Learned court of appeal below also found that merely due to acceptance of rent by plaintiff no.2 at irregular intervals it cannot be legally assumed that there was an agreement between the parties to accept the rent in such manner. It was also found that the rent of the suit premises was paid haphazardly at irregular intervals and hence the claim of the defendants could not be proved, whereas the plaintiffs were able to prove that the 3 defendants were defaulter in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The learned court of appeal below after full consideration of the pleadings and evidence of the parties in detail came to the specific conclusion that the evidence on record clearly showed beyond all preponderance of probabilities that the suit premise was bonafidely required by plaintiff no.2 to engage his son for wholesale cloth shop business and the suit premises would be the best accommodation for such business. It was also found that the evidence showed that the personal necessity of the plaintiffs was not just only their wish or impulse or desire to make out a ground for eviction of defendants from the suit premises, rather from totality of the evidence it was finally concluded that the plaintiffs had bonafide personal requirement for the suit premises. With regard to the question of partial eviction also, the learned court of appeal below was quite justified in holding that when it was found that the defendants were also defaulter in payment of rent along with finding regarding personal necessity, there was no justification for any finding with regard to partial eviction as such a finding would be merely a formality. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is quite apparent that the said findings are findings of fact arrived at by the final court of facts and this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second 4 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.)