RAJANI KANT MISHRA Vs. SHEO SAMBHU GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree made an order in Eviction Appeal No. 2/94 by the 4th Addl. District Judge, Chaibasa, Shri Prashant Kumar, who by the said first appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the original Court in Eviction Suit (T) No. 4/90.

(2.) THE plaintiff appellant had filed a suit for eviction and for realization of the arrears of rent from the defendant -tenant, who was a tenant in the suit premises described in the Schedule A of the plaint with Holding No. 133 and 144 situated in Ward No. 2 of the town Chakradharpur consisting of three pucca rooms, two rooms with khaparpoah roof, one big room, lobi etc. on the grounds, inter alia, (a) default in payment of rent, (b) personal requirement of the suit premises and (c) damage of the suit premises by the defendant. On contest, the learned original Court came to decisions that (i) there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant (2) there was personal requirement of the suit premises to the plaintiff and (3) default in payment of rent could not be established by the plaintiff and ultimately, the original Court decreed the suit on the ground of personal requirement of the suit premises.

(3.) THE second question with regard to default in payment of rent is taken up first. Both the Courts have come to a consisting finding on it. On perusal of evidences, I could find that the trial Court has based its findings on proper appreciation of evidences and rightly rejected the Ext. 4 series as documents not dependenable. Appreciation of evidence as it is reasonable and has also been confirmed by the appellate Court does not require any interference by this Court in second appeal. Therefore, this substantial question, though it is not a substantial question in my opinion, is answered in negative and against the appellants.