IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.80 of 2004 Nazir Rai son of Late Mohan Rai resident of Mohallah Digha Polsan Digha Ghat P.S. Digha Dist. Patna Defendant- Appellant- Appellant Versus 1. Lal Babu Rai 2. Dasrath Rai Both sons of Late Bhagwan Rai resident of Mohallah Digha Polsan Digha Ghat P.S. Digha Dist. Patna Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents ----------------------- For the appellant: Mr Chandra Moleshwar, Advocate For the respondents: None ------------------- 26 27.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole defendant- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Eviction Suit no.19 of 1993 which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents for eviction of the defendant-appellant-appellant from the suit premises detailed in schedule I of the plaint on the ground of default in payment of rent on bonafide personal requirement of the plaintiffs and also for arrears of rent and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned Munsif II, Patna vide his judgment and decree dated 25.01.2000 on both grounds. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant filed Title Appeal no.19 of 2000 which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge IV, Patna, vide his judgment and decree dated 11.12.2003. 5. From the arguments of the parties as well as from - 2 - the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of both the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the learned trial court after full consideration of the pleadings and evidence of the parties had come to a definite finding that admittedly defendant was the tenant of the vendor of the plaintiffs. It was also found that the said vendor by registered sale deed dated 10.05.1993 sold the suit premises to the plaintiffs and since then the plaintiffs had right and title over the said property. The learned courts below further found that the vendor introduced the plaintiffs to the defendant and instructed him to pay rent to the plaintiffs from May, 1994 onwards and hence the attornment was complete and it was the duty of the defendant to pay rent of the premises to the plaintiffs from that date, as the aforesaid purchase and attornment show that there was clear relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant. 6. The learned trial court after considering the pleadings and the evidence of the parties also came to the conclusion that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent to the plaintiffs for several months and hence he was a defaulter. So far the question of personal necessity was concerned, the learned trial court also found that the plaintiffs had bonafide personal requirement of the entire suit premises for his residential purpose and partial eviction would not satisfy the requirement of the plaintiffs as it was a single room fully required by the plaintiffs. The court of appeal below also considered the evidence of the parties and affirmed the aforesaid findings of the trial court where after the said findings have become concurrent findings of facts. - 3 - 7. Furthermore, 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. (S.N.Hussain,J) shahid