IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.125 of 2008 CHANDRA MOHAN SAH Versus BACHHA SINGH & ANR ----------- 5. 19.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. This second appeal has been filed by defendant-appellant- appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below by which he was directed to be evicted. The matter arises out of Title (Eviction) Suit No.3 of 1995 which was filed by plaintiff-respondent-respondents for eviction of the appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent from September1992 to July, 1995. The said eviction suit was decreed by learned Subordinate Judge, Katihar by judgment and decree dated 19.5.2005 against which the defendant filed Title (Eviction) Appeal No.3 of 2005 which was dismissed by Ist Additional District Judge, Katihar. Against the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below the instant second appeal has been filed by the defendant, who is the tenant as claimed by the plaintiff. After hearing the parties and perusing the materials on record including the judgments and decree of the courts below it is quite apparent that the defendant had failed to show any independent right, title and interest in the suit property whereas he specifically admitted that he was tenant one one Kewal Singh. The plaintiff claimed to be the son of said Kewal Singh (since deceased) and in support of his claim he has produced Ext.1 series holding tax receipts, Ext.2 series government 2 rent receipts and Ext.8 Municipal Survey Khatian, which were all with respect to suit premises in the name of the plaintiff, son of Kewal Singh. So far as the question of relationship of landlord and tenant is concerned, plaintiff had produced Exts.2 and 3 series which clearly showed that the plaintiff had earlier filed petition before the rent controller for enhancement of rent and the said rent controller had fixed rent of the premises at the rate of Rs.780/- per month against which the defendant filed an appeal before the Collector which was also dismissed. The plaintiff had also produced Exts.7 and 7/A which are Bahi Khata of paying and receiving rent by the plaintiff and the defendant.The respective pages 42 to 47 and 39 to 40 clearly show that the defendant used to pay rent of the suit premises to the plaintiff regularly till 1991. On the other hand, the defendant could not prove his claim by any valid material. It is also not in dispute that an order under section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act was passed by the trial court on 30.11.1998 directing the defendant to pay arrears of rent as well as current rent at the rate of Rs.780/- per month to the plaintiff but on defendant’s failure to comply the said order defendant’s defence against his ejectment was struck off. This order was never challenged by the defendant and has attained finality. In the said circumstances the learned courts below were not required to go into the defendant’s defence on the question of default but in spite of that the learned courts below considered the matter in detail and found that the defendant was defaulter not only for the period prior to filing of the suit 3 but also for the period subsequent to filing of the suit. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, it is quite apparent that the learned court below after considering the pleadings and the evidence of the parties rightly came to a conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent. These are the concurrent finding of facts of the learned courts below without committing any illegality and, hence, this cannot be challenged in a second appeal. Accordingly, this court does not find any merit in the instant second appeal nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Md.S. ( S.N.Hussain,J.)