Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the defendant -appellant against the judgment dated 13.09.2011 and decree dated 24.09.2011 passed and signed by learned Principal District Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in connection with Eviction Appeal No. 05 of 2010 whereby the judgment dated 18.01.2010 and decree dated 28.01.2010 passed and signed by the 1st Additional Munsif, Jamshedpur in connection with Eviction Suit No. 46 of 1995/32 of 2006 have been upheld. Plaintiff brought a suit against the defendant for recovery and possession of the suit premises after evicting the defendant therefrom and also for a sum of Rs. 18,000/ - as compensation for the use of suit premises from January, 1992 to May, 1995. The case of plaintiff, in brief, is that plaintiff is a registered partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act having its head office at Madras and its branch and place of business amongst other places including Jamshedpur within jurisdiction of the Court. The plaintiff has been doing contract work and for that purpose defendant No. 2 engaged some workmen/employees and for that Quarter No. 30 corresponding to old Quarter No. 2, Block No. 5, Tarapore Colony situated at Kasidih, New Lay Out, Mouza Sakchi within the district of East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur was allotted to him. The plaintiff has made further averments that defendant No. 1 A.K. Mohanty was an employee under defendant No. 2 M/s. Narbodh Construction Private Limited. The aforesaid quarter was allotted to defendant No. 1 for discharging his duties entrusted by defendant No. 2 and the condition was whenever defendant No. 1 shall be ceasing to the employment, he shall handover the quarter. The service of defendant No. 1 was terminated with effect from 11.02.1981 and he ought to have delivered vacant possession of said quarter to the plaintiff immediately. In spite of repeated reminders and requests made by the plaintiff, the defendants had not vacated the said quarter and continued their wrongful occupation as a result suit was filed. The suit was decreed on contest against defendant No. 1 whereas it was de creed against defendant No. 2 under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. Defendant No. 1 preferred Eviction Appeal No. 05 of 2010 but the judgment and decree passed by the trial court have been upheld and appeal stood dismissed, hence this second appeal before this Court.
(2.) There is concurrent findings of both the courts. The employer of appellant defendant No. 1 did not come for rescue. I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the courts. I do not find any substantial question of law involved for just decision of this appeal. This appeal is devoid of any merit, accordingly, the same stands dismissed.;