IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.391 of 2009 PURUSHOTTAM PRASAD Versus BRAHAMDEO PRASAD ----------- Puroshottam Prasad, son of late Bal Govind Ram, resident of Muhalla Gol Bagaicha, P.S. Kotwali, District Gaya. ..Defendant-appellant-appellant. -versus- Brahamdeo Prasad, son of late Jawahar Ram, resident of Mohalla Hate Godown, P.S. Kotwali, District Gaya. ..Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent -------- For the Appellant : Mr. Chitragupt Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondent : M/s T. N. Matin, Sr. Advocate and Ashok Kumar Sinha -3, Advocate ----------- 06/ 26.03.2010 Heard leaned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been filed by the sole defendant- appellant-appellant against the judgments and decree of both the courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 32 of 1997, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises, which is the ground floor of Holding No.16, Ward No.4 (Old), situated at Muhalla Hate Godown, P.S. Kotwali, District Gaya on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendant and bona fide personal requirement of the plaintiff. The said suit was decreed on contest by Munsif-I, Gaya, vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.2007. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the 2 trial court, the defendant filed Title Appeal No. 97 of 2007 (13/ 2009), which was dismissed on contest by Additional District Judge-III, Gaya, vide his judgment and decree dated 07.07.2009. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below claiming that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the defendant was inducted as tenant by Sunaina Devi vide kiraynama dated 23.04.1993 (Ext. E) with respect to parti land only and hence the suit was also not maintainable under the provision of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity). It is further claimed that the plaintiff was not entitled to get the defendant evicted and the suit for eviction was fit to be dismissed. 6. From the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the suit property belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff consisting of his son and his wife and the plaintiff being the Karta of the family was managing the same. Both the courts below very carefully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that the agreement of lease in question (Ext.E) was an unregistered document and was not in existence because it had expired, whereafter, the plaintiff had made 3 construction over the suit premises and inducted the defendant as month to month tenant of the suit premises in the year 1994. 7. So far claim of defendant regarding construction is concerned, it was further found by the courts below that there was no valid evidence to prove how and on whose permission he had made construction over the suit land. It was also found that in the room on the first floor of the house in question the son of plaintiff had been residing. Hence, it was found that the construction over the suit land was made by the plaintiff. The defendant has also failed to show any proof that his tenancy according to the Kiraynama of 1993 executed by Sunaina Devi was continuing by any material whatsoever nor he had been able to produce any rent receipt from Sunaina Devi, whereas, Exts. 3 series and Exts. `C’ series have been produced, which fully showed that even during the life time of Sunaina Devi, the defendant was paying rent to the plaintiff. In the said circumstances, the courts below rightly came to the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 8. So far the issue of personal necessity of the plaintiff is concerned, the trial court had rejected the plaintiff’s plea of personal necessity but the lower appellate court allowed the said plea of the plaintiff. However, on the issue of default, both the learned courts below gave concurrent findings that the defendants defaulted in payment of rent for more than two months and hence he has become a defaulter. 4 9. The judgments and decree of the courts below are based on concurrent findings of facts with respect to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as well as with respect to the question of default in payment of rent by the defendant, which are based on the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, as well as the settled principles of law. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second, which is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )