IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.111 of 2007 MD.GORE MISTRI @ GORE MISTRI Versus MOHMAD SULTAN ----------- 09/ 25.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the sole defendant-appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of eviction passed by the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 18 of 2002 which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises, which is a shop room on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendant and personal necessity of the son of the plaintiff. The said suit was decreed by the learned Munsif, Bihar Sharif vide judgment and decree dated 29.07.2006 which was challenged by the defendant in Eviction Appeal No.07 of 2006 which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Nalanda vide judgment and decree dated 09.05.2007. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the defendant has filed the instant second appeal. Although the question of title has been raised claiming the suit property belonging to Kabristan Committee but the learned courts below after considering the entire pleadings and evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that it was the plaintiff who let out the suit premises to the defendant in the year 1996 for which earlier rent was paid but subsequently the defendant stopped payment of rent from the month as pleaded by the plaintiff. 2 In the said circumstances, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was established and so was the question of default in payment of rent. The learned courts below also considered the question of personal necessity and specifically found the plaintiff to be in bonafide need of the suit premises for his shop. The learned courts below further considered the question of partial eviction and held that since the suit was filed for eviction on composite ground and the same has been decreed on both grounds of personal necessity and default, the consideration of partial eviction becomes meaningless. 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. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)