IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.196 of 2008 NITYA NAND GUPTA & ANR Versus SHASHI BHUSHAN PRASAD ----------- 5. 19.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants- appellants challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below by which they have been directed to be evicted. The matter arises out of Title Eviction Suit No.6 of 1992 which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent-respondent for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises, which is a shop room, on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendants and personal necessity of the plaintiff. The said suit was decreed by learned Munsif, Sheikhpura by judgment and decree dated 16.8.2002 which was challenged by the defendants in Title Eviction Appeal No.5 of 2002 which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-IV, Sheikhpura by judgment and decree dated 7.5.2008. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below the instant second appeal has been filed by the defendants. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and materials available on record including the judgments of both the learned courts below it transpires that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted by the defendants-appellants and they have been contesting the suit only on the ground that they had not defaulted in payment of rent nor the plaintiff had any bona fide requirement of the suit 2 premises. Although the defendants had claimed that they have been sending rent to the plaintiff by money order but they had failed to plead or prove that they had ever tendered the rent of the suit premises for the relevant period to the plaintiff and that only after refusal by the plaintiff rent was being sent by money order. Furthermore, the defendants could not even produce any money order receipt to prove his claim that they had been sending rent to the plaintiff by money order for the relevant period. In the said circumstances there appears to be no illegality in the finding of default arrived at by the learned courts below. So far as question of personal necessity is concerned it was originally pleaded by the plaintiff that he required the suit premises for his brother. The learned trial court found necessity to be genuine and decreed the suit on that ground also. However, the said brother of the plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal in the court below leaving behind children. In the said circumstances, learned counsel for the respondent submits that personal necessity still subsisted and hence the learned courts below have rightly dismissed the title appeal. Furthermore, the question of personal necessity is a question of fact and in view of the concurrent finding of facts of the learned courts below it is not proper for this court to interfere. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this court does not find any illegality in the 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. Md.S. ( S. N. Hussain,J.)