IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.107 of 1991 IMAMUDDIN SAH, SON OF ABDUL AZIZ, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – CHAPIA BUJURGA, P.S. HASSAINGANJ IN THE DISTRICT OF SIWAN …….. APPELLANT. Versus SMT.RASIA GANI W/O BANIRUL HAQUE, RESIDENT OF PURANI KILA. SIWAN …….. RESPONDENT. For the Appellant : - Sri Shyama Kant Singh, Advocate. ----------- 14/ 20.3.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the sole defendant-respondent-appellant against the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below. 3. The instant second appeal arises out of Eviction Suit No. 14 of 1986, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-appellant-respondent for the eviction of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises on the ground of her bona fide personal requirement. 4. The said Eviction Suit No. 14 of 1986 was dismissed by the learned Munsif I, Siwan vide his judgment and decree dated 20..7.1989, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge V, Siwan vide his judgment and decree dated 21.1.1991 setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreeing the claim and suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant on the ground of personal necessity. The said judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal blow is under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. Admittedly defendant-appellant is the tenant of plaintiff- respondent and the plaintiff had also filed Eviction Suit No. 10 of - 2 - 1986 for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of default. The said Eviction Suit No. 10 of 1986 was heard along with Eviction Suit No. 14 of 1986 and by the common judgment dated 20.7.1989 the learned trial court decreed Eviction Suit No. 10 of 1986, against which the defendant filed Eviction Appeal No. 7 of 1989, which was dismissed by the learned court of appeal below by the common judgment dated 21.1.1991. 6. After considering the impugned judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below it is quite apparent that now the claim of the plaintiff with regard to eviction of the defendant stands affirmed by the final court of fact, namely, learned court of appeal below on both the grounds of default in payment of rent as well as personal necessity of the plaintiff. 7. From the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as from the materials on record including the impugned judgment and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the defendant-appellant has admitted that he was a tenant of the plaintiff in the suit house. So far as the ground of personal necessity is concerned, the learned court of appeal below has considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties in detail and only thereafter Eviction Appeal No. 6 of 1989 filed by the plaintiff-landlady was allowed on contest with cost and Eviction Appeal No. 7 of 1989 filed by the defendant-tenant was dismissed on contest. 8. The aforesaid findings of the learned court of appeal below are findings of fact based on materials on record and hence they - 3 - require no interference in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further more, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in execution of the decree, which is challenged in the instant second appeal, the defendant-appellant has already been evicted from the suit premises. 9. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the second appeal nor does it find any substantial question of law involved therein and accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. DKS/ (S.N. Hussain, J.)