IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.131 of 2007 ----------- Rajendra Gope, son of late Prayag Gope Mohalla Terhi Barun Town and Post Bihar Sharif, P.S. Bihar, District Nalanda. ….Defendant-Appellant-Appellant versus Shubelal Prasad Singh, son of late Besheshwar Prasad Singh, Mohalla Saluganj Post Bihar Sharif, P.S. Bihar, District Nalanda. …. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent --------- For the appellant : M/s Mahendra Prasad Bharti and S. K. Bharti, Advocates. For the respondent: M/s Anjani Kumar, Sudhir Kr. Upadhyay, Birendra Kumar & Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary, Advocates. ------- 07/ 02.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendant- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2003, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent for eviction of the defendant-appellant-appellant from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff as well as default in payment of rent by the defendant. The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned Munsif, Bihar Sharif vide his judgment and decree dated 23.01.2006. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant-appellant filed Eviction Appeal No. 3 of 2006, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, 2 Nalanda vide his judgment and decree dated 03.05.2007 only on the ground of personal necessity. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, stating that the findings of the courts below are not in consonance with the pleadings of the parties and the learned courts below had not considered the evidence of the parties in their true perspective. 6. However, from the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the learned courts below have very carefully considered all the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced on behalf of both the parties as well as their respective pleadings and came to the finding that from the evidence of the defendant itself it was apparent that the plaintiff had four shop-rooms, out of which one was occupied by a son of the plaintiff running a general store, second was occupied by another tenant and the third was the suit shop occupied by the defendant as tenant, whereas, the fourth was vacant, having no door or window and being in dilapidated condition, which cannot be occupied for running a shop. 7. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the learned courts below found that the plaintiff had 3 succeeded in establishing his case that his other son Diwakar was an unemployed person having studied only up to Class-VIII and hence the suit shop was required for his purpose. The learned courts below also found that there was nothing in the evidence of the D.Ws. that the said son and wife of the plaintiff were not unemployed and they did not want to start their business of grocery. Hence it is quite apparent that the learned courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises. 8. The learned courts below rightly upheld the plaintiff’s claim of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, which fact was also admitted by the defendant in paragraph no.13 of his written statement and it was also the case of the defendant-appellant that rent was tendered by money order in respect of which Exts. A & B series were brought on record by the defendant himself and there was nothing on record to show that Exts. A & B series were forged and fabricated documents nor the defendant could show by any valid material that he was in possession of the suit premises in any other capacity. 9. So far the question of partial eviction is concerned, it is not in dispute that the area of the suit premises is only 8 feet wide and 22 feet long and hence the learned courts below after considering the position and area of the suit premises and the necessity of the plaintiff for opening a grocery shop came to the specific conclusion that the plaintiff required the entire suit 4 premises for his use and partial eviction would not satisfy his requirement. 10. All the aforesaid findings are concurrent findings of facts of the learned courts below based on specific pleadings and evidence of the parties and this Court does not intend to interfere with such findings in a second appeal under the provision of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, no substantial question of law is made out in this second appeal, 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. )