IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.201 of 2006 1. Jadubir Mahto @ Bhuto Mahto @ Bhukha Mahto Son of Late Kokai Mahto 2. Most Mira Devi Wife of Late Dharambir Mahto Both are resident of Village Mokimpur Begusarai P.O. Begusarai Sub Division and Dist. Begusarai At present Station Road Begusarai P.O.Begusarai P.S. and Dist. Begusarai Defendants-appellants-appellants Versus 1. Jitendra Kumar S/o Shri Ram Krishna Singh resident of village Bhairwa P.O. Bhairwar P.O. Muffasil Dist. Begusarai Plaintiff-Respondent Ist party 2.Mostt. Deoki Devi W/o Late Kokai Mahto 3. Raghubir Mahto S/o Late Kokai Mahton 4.Smt Bina Devi 5. Kiran Devi Both D/o Late Kokai Mahto All are resident of Village Mokimpur Begusarai P.O. Begusarai Dist. Begusarai At present Station Road Begusarai P.S. and Sub-Division and Dist. Begusarai Defendants- respondent 2nd set ----------- For the appellants: Mr Vijay Kumar Srivastava For the respondents: Mr Rajendra Kishore Prasad Mr Rohit Kishore Prasad ------------ 09 09.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendants-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit no.10 of 2001 which was filed by the sole plaintiff- respondent-respondent for eviction of the defendants on the grounds of default in payment of rent by the defendants, personal necessity of the plaintiff and expiry of the fixed period lease vide registered Kirayanama dated 31.07.1999 (exhibit 3) . 4. During the pendency of the Eviction Suit an order - 2 - under section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 was passed but the defendants did not comply the said order and as a result defence of the defendants-appellants was struck off. 5. The said eviction suit was decreed on contest by the learned Munsif I, Begusarai vide judgment and decree dated 30.08.2004. The said judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the defendants-appellants in Title Appeal no.09 of 2004 which was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Begusarai, by his judgment and decree dated 17.06.2006. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant appeal. 6. The defence of the defendants- appellants quatenant having been struck off, they raised a plea of their own title over the suit premises as well as absence of any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned courts below incidentally looked into the question of title considering the averments of the parties as well as materials on record and rightly came to the conclusion that the suit plot was a big plot which had been partitioned by metes and bounds between co-sharers including the plaintiff, who was allotted the suit premises, but since defendants wanted the said premises for their occupation a registered deed of Kirayanama was executed by both the parties on 31.07.1999 (Exhibit 3). The learned courts below also found that the said Kirayanama was admittedly executed by the father of the defendants himself. In the said circumstances, the learned courts below - 3 - very rightly found that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 7. So far ground of eviction is concerned not only the said Kirayanama but also other evidence adduced in the case proved that the tenancy was for a fixed period which had expired and the plaintiff was also able to prove his bonafide personal requirement of the suit premises as well as default of the defendants in payment of rent . These findings are concurrent findings of fact based on evidence arrived at by the learned courts below and there is no occasion for any interference in the said findings of the learned courts below in the instant second appeal. 8. Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree, 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. shahid (S.N.Hussain,J) - 4 -