IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.12 of 2003 BISHWANATH PRASAD Versus VAKIL AHMAD & ORS ----------- 6 04.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree passed by both the learned courts below. This matter arises out of Eviction Suit no.29 of 1987 which was filed by the appellant for eviction of the defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendant and bona fide personal requirement of the plaintiff. Although defendant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but contested the claim of the plaintiff regarding default and personal necessity. The said eviction suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif, Chapra by judgment and decree dated 25.4.2001 which was challenged by the plaintiff in Title Appeal no.2 of 2001 ( 1 of 2001), but the said appeal was also dismissed by the learned 5th Addl. District Judge, Saran at Chapra by judgment and decree dated 18.9.2002. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below the instant second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant- appellant. From the averments of the parties and the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below it is quite apparent that after considering the evidence 2 both oral and documentary, the learned courts below concurrently came to a finding that the defendant did not default in making rent to the plaintiff rather it was the plaintiff who had contrived to make the defendant prey of the situation created by the plaintiff himself . It was also concurrently found by the learned courts below that necessary and required elements to establish reasonable requirement of the suit building by the plaintiff was absent. It was also found that the building expert who is said to have advised the plaintiff to get the building remodeled and to include the area of the suit building in occupation of the plaintiff in the said remodeling as it had become infirm due to weather and influx of time, was the cousin of the plaintiff who was not even produced as a witness in the case. After considering the materials on record the learned courts below came to the conclusion that the landlord cannot have unfettered right to get the eviction on mere desire and wish without any bona fide and genuine requirement of the suit premises which the plaintiff has failed to show from evidence both oral and documentary. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned judgments and decree are covered by concurrent finding of facts in which this Court in second appeal can not interfere. Further more this Court does not 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. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)