IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.336 of 2004 RAM PRASAD SAH & ORS Versus KRISHNA MOHAN LAL ----------- 9/ 27-08-2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the sole respondent. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants- respondents- appellants challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned court of appeal below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 93 of 1976 which was filed by the sole plaintiff- appellant- respondent for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises, detailed in Schedule- A of the plaint on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendants, bonafide personal requirement of the plaintiff and breach of terms of the tenancy by the defendants and also for realization of arrears of rent from the defendants. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the learned 1st Additional Munsif, Bhagalpur by judgment and decree dated 16.07.1984 which was challenged by the plaintiff in Title Appeal No. 26 of 1984 and the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur allowed the said appeal by judgment and decree dated 20.08.2004, allowing the claim and suit of the plaintiff. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below the instant second appeal has been filed by the defendants. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted by the defendants who accepts that they were tenants of the plaintiff. The learned court of appeal below has arrived at a definite finding after hearing the pleadings of parties and evidence on record, that the - 2 - defendants defaulted in payment of rent. Exhibit G Series are rent receipts produced by the defendants which shows that the rent for the month of April 1975 to September 1975 was remitted on 30.09.1975. Hence apart from the other defaults the said Exhibit-G 42 clearly shows that the defendants defaulted in payment of rent for the month of April, May, June and July, 1975 by not paying it in the next succeeding month. In view of the clear findings on the basis of the documents produced by the defendants themselves the question of default in payment of rent for at least the aforesaid months has been fully proved. So far as the question of personal necessity is concerned, the plaintiff specifically pleaded that he required the suit premises for his sons who were unemployed and were sitting idle and in support thereof P.Ws. 1,2 and 3 which included the plaintiff fully supported and corroborated the pleadings and specifically proved that the suit premises was most suitable for the purpose of the said business. The said claim could not be disproved by any valid material. In the said circumstances the learned court of appeal below arrived at a definite finding that the plaintiff required the suit premises for his bonafide need. The plaintiff in his pleading and evidence had clearly showed that the defendants had made alteration and addition in the suit premises by making further construction and changing the structure of the suit premises without consent or permission of the plaintiff. The defendants’ witnesses admitted the said facts, but the defendants could not produce any material to show that the plaintiff had ever given his permission and consent for the said addition , alteration, construction and changing the structure of - 3 - the suit premises. In the aforesaid circumstances this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment 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. B.Tiwary/ (S.N Hussain,J)