IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.343 of 2004 ABDUL JALIL KHAN Versus MD.MANZOOR ALAM & ORS. ----------- 16/ 25.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. This second appeal has been filed by the sole defendant- appellant-appellant against the judgments and decree of eviction passed by the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 04 of 1995 which was filed by plaintiffs-respondents-respondents for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises bearing Shop Holding No. 129 on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiffs and default in payment of rent by the defendant. The said suit was decreed by the learned Munsif-Bihar Sharif vide judgment and decree dated 17.04.2002 against which the defendant filed Eviction Appeal No. 02 of 2002(01 of 2004) which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.1, Nalanda vide judgment and decree dated 26.08.2004. The defendant-appellant has filed the instant second appeal challenging the judgments and decree of the both the learned courts below. It is an admitted fact that the father of the defendant was a tenant of predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs and even after auction purchase of 1/4th share of the suit premises the defendant went on paying rent to the plaintiffs with respect to 12 annas share. However, the said auction sale was set aside by the learned appellate 2 court and the said order was also affirmed by this court and hence, naturally the plaintiffs became the owner-landlord of the entire suit premises as before. In the said circumstances, the learned courts below have rightly found the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties with respect to the entire suit premises. There are concurrent findings of facts with regard to personal necessity and default and this court does not find any illegality in the said findings as they are based on pleadings and evidence led by the parties. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)