- (1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment and decree affirmance passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Sahib -ganj in Title Eviction Appeal No. 5 of 1997 upholding the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant before the trial Court. The plaintiff -respondent filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 65 of 1990 praying relief for eviction of the defendant and also for a decree of arrears of rent. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant is a tenant in the suit premises and he defaulted in payment of rent for more than two months. The eviction was also sought on other grounds. The defendant appeared and contested the suit. According to the defendant, the property in question originally belonged to Babu Bhawataran Dey and the same was managed by his eldest son Dina Sharan Dey. At no point of time there was any partition. It was further pleaded that Pranab Kumar Dey had no authority or right to realize rent of the suit property and he is not the landlord in respect of the suit property nor the defendant is the tenant. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed specific issues as to whether Pranab Kumar Dey is the owner and the landlord of the suit premises and whether the defendant is the tenant of the suit premises and is a defaulter in payment of rent. Both parties led documentary as well as oral evidences. After through discussion and consideration of oral as well as documentary evidences adduced on behalf of both the parties, the trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The defendant filed an appeal before the District Judge, Sahibganj which was registered as Title Eviction Appeal No. 5 of 1997. Before the Appellate Court, the defendant raised specific ground that the judgment and decree of the trial Court is not based on legal evidences and is not sustainable in law. The Lower Appellate Court in the said circumstance considered the case issue - wise and again thoroughly discussed and examined the evidences and materials on record and on thorough consideration of the records and the points of law and facts argued before him, decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal.
(2.) MR . Ram Prawesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued before me that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are unsustainable in law as the same are not based on thorough consideration of evidences and materials on record. It was further contended by him that deposition of one Dina Sharan Pey made in Title Suit No. 53 of 1988 (Exhibit -10) and counterfoils of rent receipts of another tenant which has been marked as Exhibit 8 to 8/28 have been considered in coming to the findings by the Court below which are wholly irrelevant in the context of the suit. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the Courts below have not based their findings only on the Exhibit 10 and Exhibit 8 series, rather have considered other documentary and oral evidences and they arrived at their findings on due consideration of the materials on record and the relevant evidences adduced by the parties. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I also perused the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below and I find that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have thoroughly scrutinized and considered the evidences adduced by both the parties and have come to the findings on the basis thereof. I further find that the judgments and decrees are not only based on Exhibit 10 and Exhibit 8 series but the said documents have also been considered along with other documents, and the findings of the Courts below are not based only on those evidences Exhibit 10 and Exhibit 8 series, I, therefore, find no infirmity in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below giving rise to any substantial question of law. This appeal is, accordingly dismissed.;