IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.133 of 1994 Kanhaiya @ Kanhaiya Lal @ Lal Choudhary son of Baiju Choudhary, resident of Mahadeva Arrah, P.S. Arrah Town, District Bhojpur. …Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Versus 1(A) Widow name not known W/o deceased Om Kumar Jain @ Amendra Kumar Jain 1(B) Jainendra Kumar 1(C) Satendra Kumar sons of deceased Om Kumar Jain @ Amendra Kumar Jain 1(D) AnitaDevi 1(E) Sunita Devi 1(F) Guriya daughters of deceased Om Kumar Jain @ Amendra Kumar Jain, all residents of Quarter No.5379 , Post Dalmiyanagar, District Rohtas. ..Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 2. Santosh Kumar Choudhary son of late Baiju Choudhary, resident of Mohalla Mahadeva Arra Town, District Bhojpur. 3. Chhedilal Choudhary son of Late Baiju Choudhary resident of Mahajan Tola No.1 Mahadeva Road, Arrah,District Bhojpur. ….Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. For the appellant : M/s S.K. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate and Mallika Mazumdar, Advocate. For the respondents : None. ----------- 05/ 22.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendant-appellant appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.36 of 1989, which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent-respondent for eviction of the defendant-appellant on the grounds of default in payment of rent by the defendant and bonafide personal requirement of the plaintiff with respect to the suit premises. 2 The said title suit was decreed on contest on both the grounds by the learned Munsif, Arrah vide his judgment and decree dated 28.07.1992. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the defendant filed T.A. No.82 of 1992 which was dismissed on contest by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge,Arrah, Bhojpur vide his judgment and decree dated 03.03.1994. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that admittedly plaintiff was the landlord of the suit premises and there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. So far the question of default is concerned, both the learned courts below came to the specific finding that defendant had defaulted in payment of rent for more than two months. So far the question of personal necessity is concerned, the learned courts below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in service in Rohtas Industries and after its closure he wanted the suit premises for the residence of his family as well as for starting his own business. The learned courts below also found that plaintiff was suffering from diabetes and hyper tension and the doctor had advised to reside on the ground-floor. Considering the requirement of the suit premises for residence of the plaintiff with his family and also for starting a business, the learned courts below also found that the plaintiff had bonafide personal requirement of the entire suit premises and his requirement will not be fulfilled by partial eviction 3 of the defendant. The aforesaid findings of the leaned courts below are concurrent findings of facts based on the specific pleadings and evidence of the parties which cannot be interfered with in a second appeal under the provision of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, 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 this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)