IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.125 of 2009 ---- Vijoy Chandra Pathak, son of Late Maheshwar Pathak, resident of Mohalla- Bahuar Chaura, P.S. Civil Line, District-Gaya. Defendant-appellant-appellant. Versus Devendra Kumar Mishra, son of Late Gangadhar Mishra, Resident of Mohalla-Nadaraganj Mallah Toli, P.S. Civil Line, District- Gaya. Plaintiff-respondent-respondent. ---- For the appellant : M/s Veena Rani Prasad and Vishal Saurabh, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinah, Advocate. ----- 05. 13.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendant- appellant-appellant challenging judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No.30 of 2003 which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent for eviction of the sole defendant-appellant-appellant on the grounds of default in payment of rent by the defendant and bonafide personal requirement of the plaintiff. The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned Munsif-I, Gaya vide his judgment and decree dated 26.11.2007 only the ground of default in payment of rent. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant filed Eviction Appeal No.04 of 2008 (09/2008) which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-cum Fast Track Court No.2, Gaya vide his judgment - 2 - and decree dated 24.01.2009 on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as bonafide personal requirement. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of both the learned courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. From the pleadings of the parties and from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the case of the plaintiff- respondent was that he owned and possessed the suit premises and defendant was his tenant at the rent of Rs.800 per month. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has raised a point that in fact, the suit premises belonged to one Mani Devi and the plaintiff was only the collector of rent on her behalf and hence after the death of Mani Devi much before the filing of the suit, the plaintiff was ceased to have any interest in the suit property and accordingly the suit filed by him was not maintainable. In this regard, she has stated that Mani Devi was a government servant and she died prior to 2001 and with regard to her service benefits C.W.J.C. No.8128 of 2001 was filed by one Bharat Upadhayay claiming to be her husband. In the said writ case, the plaintiff appeared as intervener and finally after hearing the parties concerned, a Bench of this court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 24.09.2001 (Ext.-D) holding that it was not a proper forum to decide the issue as to the heirship of the said Mani Devi and the proper forum for the said purpose was the civil court. Hence, learned counsel for the appellant claims that the plaintiff having no right, title and interest in the suit property was not entitled to file a suit for defendant’s eviction. - 3 - 6. From the facts and circumstances as well as the order passed in the aforesaid writ case, it is quite apparent that the plaintiff was claiming to be the heir of Mani Devi and the contest was between him and Bharat Upadhayay, but there is nothing to show that after the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition the said Bharat Upadhayay had taken any step in any court of law with regard to the property of Mani Devi as his husband. In the said circumstances, there was no heir of Mani Devi to dispute the claim of the plaintiff. Furthermore, admittedly the defendant had paid rent to the plaintiff which was fully proved by the rent receipts produced in the suit. 7. In the said circumstances, both the learned courts below arrived at concurrent findings of fact that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also concurrently found by both the learned courts below that defendant had defaulted in payment of rent for much more than two months. Thus, both the learned courts below were quite justified in decreeing the claim of the plaintiff on the basis of pleadings and specific evidence adduced by the parties, both oral and documentary, on the said issue. In the said circumstances, this court cannot interfere with such concurrent findings of fact in an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Furthermore, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of both 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 of under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil - 4 - Procedure. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)