IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.92 of 2006 Panna Lal son of late Ram Khelawan Ram, resident of Mauza Barbigha, Purani Sahar, P.O. and P.S. Barbigha, in the district of Sheikhpura. … Defendant- Appellant- Appellant. Versus 1. Most. Rajeshwari Devi wife of late Hari Prasad Gupta, resident of Mauza Barbigha, Purani Sahar, P.O. and P.S. Barbigha, District- Seikhpura. 2. Smt. Beena Gupta, wife of Prem Kumar Gupta, resident of Nabi Nagar, Mangal Bazar, P.S. Aurangabad, in the district of Aurangabad. 3. Smt. Savita Gupta wife of Panna Lal Gupta, resident of Barhampur, P.S. Jhariaun, District Fatehpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 4. Smt. Geeta Gupta wife of Ram Gulam Gupta, resident of Ghar Wasipur, P.S. Asothar, District Fatehpur, in the State of U.P. 5. Smt. Neelam Gupta, wife of Rajeev Ranjan Das, resident of Patnacity in the district of Patna. 6. Smt. Punam Gupta wife of Dilip Kumar Gupta, resident of Jehanabad P.S. and District Jehanabad. 7. Smt. Mamta Gupta, wife of Ajay Shankar Gupta, resident of Sweets Shop, Barnapur, Near T.V.Tower, P.S. Barnapur, District Varanshi ( U.P.) 8. Smt. Madhuri Gupta, wife of Jayant Kumar, resident of Raj Nagar, P.S. Raj Nagar, District Madhubani. … Plaintiffs- Respondents- Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. ---------- 7/ 25-11-2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole defendant- appellant challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 3 of 1993 which was filed by the plaintiffs- respondents- respondents for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises which is a shop ( Katra) on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendant as well as bonafide personal requirement of the plaintiffs. - 2 - 4. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the learned Munsif, Sheikhpura by judgment and decree dated 18.01.2003 on aforesaid two grounds of default in payment of rent by the defendant as well as bonafide personal requirement of the plaintiffs with respect to the premises. 5. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the defendant filed Eviction Appeal No. 4 of 2003 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-1, Sheikhpura by his judgment dated 31.01.2006, affirming the judgment and decree of the learned trial court only on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendant, whereas the ground of personal necessity raised by the plaintiffs was not found to be sustainable in law .Against the said judgments and decree of the learned courts below the instant second appeal has been filed by the defendant. 6. From the averments of the learned counsel for the appellant , the materials available on record including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below it appears that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was admitted and the plea raised by the defendant- appellant with regard to default in payment of rent was that prior to the filing of the suit the plaintiffs had stopped the amenities which were part of the terms of tenancy and hence the suit on the ground of default in payment of rent was not maintainable. However, it is quite apparent from the pleadings as well as the evidence of the parties that the defendant did not pay the rent to the plaintiffs for more than two months. 7. So far the defence taken by the defendant is concerned, there is no material at all to show that any such amenity was - 3 - stopped by the plaintiffs and if any such act had been done the defendant should have approached the House Controller for the said purpose under the provisions of the Bihar Building ( Lease, Rent and Eviction ) Control Act, 1982 but there is nothing to show that the defendant had taken any step in that regard. Hence the said plea taken by the defendant- appellant cannot be held to be sustainable in law. 8. Furthermore, the matter is covered by concurrent findings of facts with regard to default in payment of rent by the defendant and hence this Court in a second appeal cannot interfere with the said judgments and decree under the provisions of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In any view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned court of appeal 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. B.Tiwary/ (S.N Hussain,J)