IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 134 of 2020 1. Ruka Devi, wife of Late Binod Saw, aged about 65 years 2. Rajesh Saw, aged about 42 years 3. Ranjeet Saw, aged about 38 years Appellant nos. 2 and 3 are sons of Late Binod Saw All residents of Amlapara, Jharia, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad. … … Defendants/Appellants/Appellants Versus 1. Malti Banerjee, wife of Late Madhusudan Banerjee, resident of Amlapara, Jharia, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad. … … Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent 2. Kailash Saw 3. Minu Saw 4. Nagu Saw Respondent nos. 2 to 4 are sons of Late Binod Saw, residents of Amlapara, Jharia, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad. … … Defendants/Appellants/Proforma Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate For the Respondents : --- 08/20.01.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19.12.2019 (decree signed on 06.01.2020) passed by learned District Judge-XIV, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2018 whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dated 09.03.2018 (decree signed on 22.03.2018) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 09 of 2005 has been affirmed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that both the learned Courts have decided the case against the appellants who were admittedly tenant in the premises. Both the learned Courts have held that the appellants were tenant and a defaulter with respect to the payment of rent. The default was from March, 2004. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that there was no documentary evidence adduced by either party and the plaintiff landlord had deposed in her cross-examination that there was 2 no dispute with the original tenant namely Binod Saw, but thereafter his heirs became the tenant over the property and they used to fight with her. The learned counsel has also submitted that it was the case of the defendants that they were tenant in the property and certain rooms were constructed in which they spent certain money which was to be adjusted. The learned counsel has also submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Courts with regard to default is perverse. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and upon going through the judgments passed by the learned Courts, this Court finds that the factum of tenancy as well as the factum of default has been arrived at after considering the materials on record. The relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties is not in dispute. This court finds that the story of spending Rs.40,000/- by the tenant for construction of certain rooms which was to be adjusted against rent has been discarded by both the court after appreciating the materials on record. Both the court have found that the appellant were defaulters in the matter of payment of rent. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the judgments passed by both the learned Courts. 6. This Court finds that no question of law much less any substantial question of law is involved in this case calling for any interference. Accordingly, this second appeal is hereby dismissed. 7. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj