IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.62 of 2009 ---- 1. Geeta Devi wife of Late Subash Rajak 1(a) Sachindra Kumar 1(b) Krishna Kumar Sons of Late Subash Rajak 1(c) Pratima Kumari d/o Late Subash Rajak All residents of Mohalla Mandiri, P.S.Budha Colony, District-Patna. 2. Nand Kishore Rajak son of Late Lala Dhobi Resident of R’ Block, Road No.5 Quarter of Yadavendra Prasad Mahar, P.O. and P.S. Sachivalaya, District-Patna. 3. Dilip Kumar Rajak son of Lala Dhobi, Resident of Gauria Math, P.S.-Jakkanpur, District-Patna. 4. Vijoy Rajak son of Late Lala Dhobi Resident of Mohalla-Mandiri, P.S.Budha Colony, District- Patna. 5. Rajo Rajak alias Raju Kumar Rajak, son of Late Lala Dhobi Resident of Mohalla-Mandiri, P.S.Budha Colony, Dist-Patna. 6. Geeta Devi wife of Mahesh Rajak, Resident of L.C.T Ghat, P.O. & P.S. Digha, Dist-Patna. 7. Neelam Devi wife of Ramesh Rajak, Resident of Maner, P.S.-Maner, District-Patna. --Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. Versus 1. Santosh Kumar 1(a) Satish Kumar Both sons of Ramashish Rajak, Residents of Mohalla-North Mandiri (Dhobi Tola), P.S.- Budha Colony, District-Patna. 1(b) Chanda Devi d/o Ramashish Rajak 1(c) Tara Devi d/o Ramashish Rajak, Both resident of Mohalla North Mandiri (Dhobi Tola) P.S.Budha Colony,District-Patna. 2. Lalan Rajak son of Late Ram Kishun Dhobi, Resident of Mohalla-Mandiri, P.S.Budha Colony, District-Patna. -- Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents. ---- For the appellants : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Singh, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Birnedra Nath Mishra, Advocate ---- 05. 18.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants- - 2 - appellants-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No.72 of 1996 which was filed by plaintiffs-respondents-respondents for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises detailed in Schedule IV of the plaint and also for a decree of arrears of rent and for other ancillary reliefs on the grounds of default in payment of rent by the defendants and bonafide personal requirement of the plaintiffs with regard to suit premises. 4. The aforesaid eviction suit was decreed by the learned Munsif, II, Patna on contest without cost vide his judgment and decree dated 28.03.2000. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants filed Title Appeal No.48 of 2000 (108/2006) which was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court no.II, Patna vide his judgment and decree dated 15.05.2008. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. From the arguments of the parties and materials on record, including the judgments and decree of learned courts below, it transpires that the defendants raised objection claiming their own title over the suit property and while considering the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the learned courts below incidentally looked into the question of title of the parties on the basis of their respective pleadings and evidence and came to the - 3 - conclusion that the entire evidence on record go to prove that Lala Rajak was the owner of the half of the one katha purchased land and he got it partitioned and was allotted in western side over which he constructed house and thereafter he sold it to Dhanuk Rajak who is coming in possession over that property and the suit house not being on the said portion exclusively belonged to Ram Kishun and Ram Dulari (Ram Kishun being the brother of Lala Rajak) and the plainfiffs, who are heirs of Ram Kishun and Ram Dulari, had valid right and title over the suit land and are the owners of the suit property. 6. So far the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned, the learned courts below considering the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that plaintiffs had been able to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant by the parties by valid evidence and the status of defendants over the suit premises as tenants has also been found in the Panchnama, Ext.-6, over which D.W.2 has admitted his signature, whereafter it was marked as exhibit. Hence, relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had been established. 7. A tenant raising a claim of title over the tenanted premises is sufficient for eviction of the tenant and apart from that it was found from the evidence of both the parties that the defendants had defaulted in payment of rent and became a defaulter liable to be evicted from the suit premises. Furthermore, the learned courts below have also come to a definite finding that the plaintiffs had - 4 - proved their personal necessity and the defendants failed to produce any evidence to the contrary and hence the plaintiffs had bonafide personal requirement of the suit premises and partial eviction of the defendants from the same would not satisfy the requirement of the plaintiffs. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts 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. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)