S.B.Second Appeal No.460/2006 Sardar Singh vs. Vivek Sharma Order dt.28/8/2008 1/3 S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO. 460/2006 (Sardar Singh vs. Vivek Sharma) DATE OF JUDGMENT : 28/8/2008 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.K.C.Samdariya, for the appellant. 1. This second appeal by the defendant appellant has been filed against the concurrent findings of two courts below in an eviction matter. The first appellate court by its judgment dated 27/9/2006 affirmed the judgment and decree of trial court dated 21/7/99. Thus, both the courts below have held that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was established and on account of non- payment of rent and for the bonafide need of the respondent-plaintiff, the decree of eviction was passed by both the courts below. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant Mr.K.C.Samdariya submitted that the plaintiff-respondent Mr. Vivek Sharma failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant before the courts below inasmuch as original landlord of the suit premises in question was one Chhai Bai w/o Bhura Lal ji Sharma about whom the said plaintiff has deposed before the Court that he does not know him. He, S.B.Second Appeal No.460/2006 Sardar Singh vs. Vivek Sharma Order dt.28/8/2008 2/3 therefore, submits that said relationship was not established and since ownership of the suit premises was not established by the respondent-plaintiff, therefore, courts below have erred in passing the decree of eviction. 3. Having heard learned counsel, this Court finds no substantial question arises in present second appeal. The Courts below have concurrently found that not only the standard rent of Rs.350/- was fixed at the instance of plaintiff which the defendant-appellant paid but he also produced Exhibit-3 duly bearing the signature of defendant-appellant, which is rent receipt in the name of defendant issued by Chhai Bai w/o Bhura Lal ji Sharma. Said person Shri Bhura Lal ji Sharma is cousin of grand-father of present plaintiff respondent Vivek Sharma and this relationship has been duly established by the plaintiff-respondent in the evidence of plaintiff himself and his father Mr. Rajendra son of Satya Dev Ji. 4. It is well settled that question of title is not required to be established in eviction matters and only the relationship of landlord and tenant is required to be established. Since, both the courts below S.B.Second Appeal No.460/2006 Sardar Singh vs. Vivek Sharma Order dt.28/8/2008 3/3 have found on the basis of evidence, oral as well as documentary before trial court that relationship between landlord and tenant was established by the plaintiff respondent, such finding of fact cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. The findings about personal boanfide necessity of respondent-plaintiff are also findings of facts and, therefore, same are not required to be upset in present second appeal. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. The second appeal is found to be devoid of merit and same is accordingly dismissed. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no. 54 baweja/-