IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.92 of 2009 1.Jagdish Prasad Mahto ,Son of Ramdahin Mahto, R/o Mohalla- Bhartiganj, P.O.+P.S. –Sasaram ,District- Rohtas. 2.Lalan Prasad. 3.Ajay Kumar. Both sons of Late Shankar Ram, R/o Mohalla- Shobhaganj, P.O+P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas. 4.Rasis Mian, Son of Late Suleman Mian, R/o Mohalla- Kabirganj, P.O.+P.S. –Sasaram ,District- Rohtas. 5.Bansidhar Goswami, Son of Late Mahesh Ram Goswami, R/o Mohalla- Kajipura, P.O.+P.S. –Sasaram ,District- Rohtas. 6. Kalawati Kuer, Wife of Late Nathuni Prasad Patwa. 7.Ramesh Patwa, Son of Late Nathuni Prasad Patwa. Both R/o Mohalla- Sonartoli, P.O.+P.S. –Sasaram ,District- Rohtas. ---Plaintiffs-Appellants. Versus 1. Commissioners of Sasaram Municipality, Sasaram, District- Rohtas. 2. Special Officer, now Executive Officer, Sasaram Municipality , Sasaram, District- Rohtas. -- Defendants------Respondents. ----------- 5. 20.09.2011 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in support of this appeal. The appellants, who are plaintiffs have lost in both the courts below. The suit was filed under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. for declaration that the plaintiffs and other 2 shop owners of the Municipal Market, Sasaram are permanent tenants of their respective shops mentioned in detail in Schedule A of the plaint and the decision of the defendant/municipality to enhance the ground rent of their shops is illegal and without jurisdiction. The plaintiffs have come out with the case that there is a market known as Gola Market in Sasaram Town where there are number of shops possessed by different persons and those persons or their predecessor have taken permanent settlement of the lands and thereafter they themselves have constructed the shops and have been paying only ground rent to the municipality and as such the decision of the municipality to enhance the rent of the shops in question is without jurisdiction. However the defendant/municipality denied the claim of the plaintiffs regarding permanent settlement of the land with the plaintiffs and other shop owners and have also denied the assertion that the shops have been constructed by different shop owners who are in possession of the same. The parties led their evidence in support of their assertion and after the hearing their submissions the trial court has concluded that the plaintiffs and other shop 3 owners whose interest the plaintiffs represent have failed to prove the permanent tenancy as pleaded and have also failed to prove that the shops in question have been constructed by the respective shop owners. It has been further found that the defendant/municipality has been realizing rent of the shops and ground rent from the shop owners but its decision for enhancement of rent was not in accordance with law and accordingly the suit was decreed in part. In appeal by the plaintiffs, appellate court took notice of the issues and findings by the trial court and thereafter proceeded to consider those issues in view of the rival contentions made by the parties. The appellate court after meticulously considering the evidence and the submissions has disbelieved the plaintiffs’ case of acquiring permanent tenancy over the shops in question and has found that the plaintiffs have also failed to establish that the disputed shops have been constructed long ago by them or their predecessors. It has been further found that the defendant municipality has in fact constructed the shops and has inducted the shop keepers therein on rent and has been realizing the rent of the shop from them. Accordingly, the appellate court dismissed the 4 appeal concurring with the judgment passed by the trial court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has strenuously tried to emphasize that the appellate court has committed error in law in not formulating the points for determination before recording its finding. It has been further submitted that there has been gross misappreciation of evidence by both the courts below and the findings of fact recorded therein are vitiated on that score. Developing his submissions further the learned counsel has argued that there are materials on record to show that the construction of shops is in uneven and haphazard manner which is suggestive of the fact that the defendant municipality has not constructed the said shops but both the courts below have failed to draw inference in favour of the plaintiffs on this basis. The learned counsel has thus made the prayer that substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal requiring interference by this Court. The perusal of the judgment of the appellate court shows that it has proceeded to consider all the issues in view of the rival contentions of the parties in appeal in 5 the light of the evidence on record. Non framing of specific points for consideration becomes immaterial when the appellate court considers all the issues which will necessarily encompass all the important questions involved in the case. It is not the case of the appellants that any particular point has been left out from consideration by the appellate court causing prejudice to the parties. Thus, there is substantial compliance of the provision of Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. by the appellate court in its judgment and there is absence of substance in the submission of the learned counsel in this regard. Further both the courts below have considered the pleadings as well as evidence of the parties and the findings have been recorded after detailed analysis of the evidence. It is well settled that the reappraisal of evidence is not permissible in second appeal unless the findings of the courts below are shown to be perverse. Merely because a third view may be possible on the reappreciation of the evidence cannot be a ground for upsetting the concurrent findings of fact. No perversity in the findings of the courts could be established on behalf of the appellants during the 6 course of argument and as such there is no scope for interference to the second appeal. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)