IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.28 of 2007 PASPAT RAI & ANR. Versus JAGARNATH SAH & ANR. with SA No.40 of 2007 PASPAT RAI & ANR. Versus JAGARNATH SAH & ANR. ----------- For the appellants : M/s R.C. Sinha, Sushil Kumar & M.K. Sinha, Advocates. For the respondents : M/s Shirinandan Prasad Singh & Ashok Kumar, Advocates. 09/ 26.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. In these two second appeals parties are same and the matters arise out of common judgments and decree of the learned lower appellate court as well as of the learned trial court. Eviction Suit No. 19 of 1997 was filed by the respondents for eviction of the appellants from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent by the appellants as well as personal necessity of the respondents. Subsequently Title Suit No. 185 of 1997 was filed by the appellants for a decree of specific performance of contract against the respondents for execution of a sale deed as per the agreement for sale of December, 1996. Both the aforesaid suits were heard together by the learned Munsif, Muzaffarpur(East), whereafter by a common judgment and decree dated 04.02.2006 the learned trial court decreed Eviction Suit No. 19 of 1997 and dismissed Title Suit No. 185 of 2 1997. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellants filed Eviction Appeal No. 07 of 2006 and Title Appeal No 13 of 2006 which were heard together by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.-IV, Muzaffarpur and both the appeals were dismissed by a common judgment and decree dated 16.12.2006. Against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court with regard to Eviction Appeal No.07 of 2006, the appellants have filed Second Appeal No.28 of 2007, whereas against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court with regard to Title Appeal No.13 of 2006, the appellants have filed Second Appeal No. 40 of 2007 and for the sake of convenience both the second appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. It is an admitted fact that the suit premises originally belonged to the respondents, who inducted the appellants as tenants in the year 1990 at the rent of Rs.60/- per month and the appellants paid rent up to December, 1994 whereafter no rent was paid. The question in dispute is the claim of the appellants that in December, 1994 there was an agreement for sale by the respondents in favour of the appellants fixing Rs.15,000.00 as consideration money out of which Rs.10,000.00 was paid as advance and as part performance of the agreement the appellants were put in possession of the suit premises as owners from January, 1995. It was also claimed by the appellants that the agreement for sale/receipts were burnt in the fire on 15.11.1996 whereafter the appellants continuously requested the respondents to 3 accept the remaining consideration amount of Rs.5,000.00 and execute the sale deed but the respondents did not execute any sale deed and hence from 1995 there was neither relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties nor there was any question of default in payment of rent, rather the respondents were at fault and dilly dallied the matter regarding the execution of the sale deed as per the agreement, which compelled the appellants to file the suit for specific performance of contract. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the main issue for consideration was the question of agreement for sale because if the appellants were able to prove the said agreement in part performance of which they were allowed to be in possession of the suit premises, there would be no question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, nor there would be any question of default in payment of rent. This question has been dealt in detail by the learned courts below. The learned trial court has considered the entire oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties on this point, whereafter it had come to a specific finding that there was no documentary evidence at all to show that there was any agreement for sale between the parties with respect to suit premises in December, 1994 or that any advance amount was paid by the appellants to the respondents, nor there was any material to show that the respondents permitted the appellants to continue in possession of the suit premises as owners in part performance of the agreement. It was also found that 4 there was no satisfactory oral evidence to support the claim of the appellants. Hence, both the learned courts below concurrently and specifically found that the appellants had miserably failed to prove any such agreement for sale of the suit property between the parties and they continued in possession thereof not as owners but as tenants. Admittedly the appellants were inducted as tenants in the suit premises in the year 1990 by the respondents. As the main defence of the appellants was failed, the learned courts below were quite justified in holding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and even as per the admission of the parties they have been defaulter from January, 1995. So far the question of personal necessity is concerned, the learned courts below also found that the respondents had bonafide requirement of the suit premises which could not be disproved by the appellants. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the judgments and decree of the learned courts below are covered by the findings of fact and this court does not find any illegality in them, nor does find any substantial question of law involved in any of the aforesaid two second appeals, which are accordingly dismissed. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)