IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.110 of 2008 1. Raju Ram, son of late Mahendra Ram, resident of village Rajnagar, P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani, at present Mauja Mangrauni, Mohalla Laheriaganj, P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani. 2. Arun Kumar Ram alias Arun Ram, son of late Mahendra Ram, resident of village Rajnagar, village Rajnagar, District Madhubani 3. Srimati Chandraka Devi, widow of late Mahendra Ram, Rajnagar, P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani …….Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. Versus 1. Sri Shankar Ram, son of late Sitaram Ram 2. Srimati Geeta Devi, wife of Shankar Ram Both of village Rajnagar, P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani …… Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents. ----------- For the Appellants : M/s Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Awanish Kumar Pandey and Ashutosh Kudmar Tripathi, Advocates. For the Respondents : None. --------- 06/ 01.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 02 of 1999 (05/01), which was filed by plaintiffs-respondents-respondents for eviction of defendants-appellants from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiffs as well as default in payment of rent by the defendants. The aforesaid suit was decreed on contest by the learned Munsif-II, Madhubani vide judgment and decree dated 21.09.2001. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants filed Eviction Appeal No. 02 of 2001, which 2 was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge- cum-Fast Track Court-I, Madhubani vide his judgment and decree dated 18.02.2008. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. The admitted fact of this case is that the plaintiffs- respondents are the exclusive owners of the suit premises. However, the contest between the parties is that according to the plaintiffs, the defendants are their tenants, whereas, according to the defendants, they are in possession of the suit premises on the basis of an agreement for sale between them in the year 1987, for which the entire consideration amount of Rs.10,500.00 was paid and also a Panchnama dated 26.05.1996 (Ext.A) was executed by the Panches, according to which the defendants had to pay a further amount of Rs.10,000.00 to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendants and hence the defendants were in possession of the suit premises as part performance of the contract and not as tenants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently challenges the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below claiming that the plaintiffs could not prove their claim of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and hence there was no occasion for decreeing the suit under the provision of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1982 ( hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity) . He further claimed that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances there was no question of 3 payment of rent nor there was any question of default due to non- payment. He also averred that there is no finding with regard to partial eviction, without which the findings of the learned courts below with regard to personal necessity of the plaintiffs cannot be entertained. 7. From the pleadings of the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that, admittedly, the plaintiffs were owners of the suit premises and the defendants were claiming on the basis of the alleged oral agreement for sale of the year 1987 and payment of the full consideration amount.. The said agreement for sale and payment of the consideration amount is not supported by any chit of paper. Furthermore, the alleged Panchnama (Ext.A) dated 26.05.1996 had not been signed by the plaintiffs rather it has been signed by the alleged Panches and by the said exhibit, the defendants were to pay further amount of Rs.10,000.00 to the plaintiffs. This document completely demolishes the defendants’ claim of oral sale of the year 1987. Furthermore, no chit of paper having been produced by the defendants in support of their claim that the plaintiffs agreed to the said Panchnama, the said document has no value in the eye of law. It is also admitted fact that the defendants had never filed any suit against the plaintiffs for specific performance of contract on the basis of the said oral agreement for sale. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned courts below were fully justified in not relying upon the aforesaid Panchnama (Ext.A), apart from which there was no document at all to support the defendants’ claim. 4 8. On the other hand, both the learned courts below, after considering the evidence of the parties, had concurrently come to the conclusion that although there is no Kiraynama but the plaintiffs’ witnesses clearly proved the factum of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and there was nothing on record to disbelieve the statements of the said witnesses. It was also found that plaintiffs’ witnesses were more reliable and cogent in comparison to the depositions of defendants’ witnesses. The aforesaid concurrent findings of fact are found to be in accordance with law after considering the pleadings and evidence of both the parties and hence this Court cannot interfere with the same in a second appeal under the provision of section 100 the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. So far questions of default in payment of rent by the defendants as well as bona fide personal requirement of the plaintiffs are concerned, the learned trial court considered the said questions in detail according to the evidence produced by the parties in that regard and, thereafter, came to a specific finding that the defendants had defaulted in payment of rent and that the plaintiffs had bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises. The said findings have been fully affirmed by the learned court of appeal below. Both the aforesaid findings being concurrent findings of facts, based on pleadings and evidence of the parties, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the same. 10. So far the question of absence of any finding with respect to the partial eviction of the defendants from the suit 5 premises is concerned, when the suit had been decreed on both the grounds of personal necessity and default, the consideration of partial eviction is not necessary as has been held by this Court in several decisions, including the decision in case of M/s Bharat Roadways and another vs. Shailendra Kumar Birla, reported in 1984 B.B.C.J. 97. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 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 the stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )