JUDGMENT Bhuvanedhwar Prasad, J. - In this Second Appeal parties were heard on the point of its admission. This appeal is directed against the judgment, and decree dated 3.2.1989 passed by Shri R. C. Srivastava, IV Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur in Title Appeal No. 3/86 affirming with modification the judgment and decree dated 21.7.1986 passed by Shri Rajendra Sinha Special Execution Munsif, Muzaffarpur in Title Suit No. 59/79. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is concurrent finding of fact by both the learned courts below and as such the same cannot be challenged in the Second Appeal. He has accordingly contended that this Second Appeal is not fit for admission. 3. It appears that the plaintiffs-respondents had filed a suit for evicting the defendants-appellants from the suit premises. From the judgment of learned trial court, it appears that issue nos. 3 and 4 were framed which are as follows : Issue no. 3 : "Whether the defendants are defaulters and are liable for eviction from the suit premises? Issue no. 4: "Have the plaintiffs got personal necessity for the suit premises? 4. So far as issue no. 3 is concerned, from paragraph 16 of the judgment it appears that the learned Munsif had held that the defendants had defaulted in payment of rent for more than two months and as such the plaintiffs were entitled to the decree for eviction of the defendants. 5. So far as issue no. 4 is concerned, it appears to have been decided against the plaintiffs as in the concluding portion of paragraph 17, it has been held that the plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove that they require the suit premises in a bonafide and genuine manner for their personal necessity. Accordingly, the learned Munsif decreed the suit and directed the defendants to give vacant possession to the plaintiffs immediately. 6. On appeal the learned IV Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur framed a number of points as will appear from paragraph 8 of his judgment. The point no. 1 is as follows:- Point no. 1: Whether the defendant-appellants are defaulters ? 7. In the concluding portion of paragraph 18 of the judgment he has held the defendants-appellants were defaulters in the eyes of law. 8. The point no. 1 is as follows:- Point no. 1: Whether the defendant-appellants are defaulters ? 7. In the concluding portion of paragraph 18 of the judgment he has held the defendants-appellants were defaulters in the eyes of law. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that under these circumstances there is concurrent finding of both the courts below that the defendants-appellants had become defaulters in the eyes of law and therefore on this ground alone they are liable to be evicted. In this connection they have placed reliance on the case of Mostt. Jahejo Devi v. Mohram Ali (1988 BLJ 363 : 1988 PLJR 33 (SC). This is a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This was also a case under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977. In that case also there was concurrent finding of fact on the question of default in payment of rent and the bona fide need of the landlord. It was held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with such findings of fact. This was an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for which Special Leave was granted. It was against the judgment and order of this court in Second Appeal which was in respect of eviction from the suit premises. The appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was by the landlord who had brought the suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as on the ground of bonafide need of the snit premises. There also the trial court came to the conclusion that the tenant was defaulter and this finding of the learned trial court was affirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge to whom the appeal was taken. The matter was taken to this court in Second Appeal in which it was held that the finding that there was default in payment of rent from November 29, 1977 to April 10, 1978 was erroneous. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court was in error in upsetting the concurrent findings of fact both on the points of default and bonafide need of landlord and the judgment and order of this court, therefore, were set aside. In the present case there is concurrent finding of fact so far as default in payment of rent is concerned. In the present case there is concurrent finding of fact so far as default in payment of rent is concerned. Hence this decision will fully apply to the facts of the present case, even though in the said case there was concurrent findings of fact with respect to the personal necessity of the plaintiffs. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the case of State of U.P. vs. Ram Chandra (A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2547). From the facts of the said case it would appear that the respondent was appointed as temporary clerk. Several years later he was required to appear in a departmental examination and optional typewriting test. In the typewriting test another person was found attempting to personate and appear for the respondent. Accordingly termination order of both of them was issued. There was concurrent finding of fact in the said case that the termination of service was not by way of punishment. The High Court, however, in Second Appeal interfered with this concurrent findings of both the courts below. It was held that interference by the High Court with concurrent findings of fact is not justified even if any such finding is erroneous. It was held that the well settled principle of law that a Second Appeal cannot be entertained on the ground of erroneous finding of fact, however, gross error might be, was ignored by the High Court. Accordingly the judgment and decree of the High Court was set aside. Relying on these two decisions the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that this Second Appeal is not fit for admission. 10. In reply the learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to substantial question of law as mentioned at page no. 17 of the synopsis of the case submitted by the appellants. The question no. V runs as follows:- "Whether in absence of a finding of the appellate court to the effect that the defendants were in default of more than two months rent at the time of filing of the suit, a decree for eviction can be sustained ?" 11. I have already stated above that there has been a concurrent finding of both the courts that the appellants had become defaulters in the eyes of law. I have already stated above that there has been a concurrent finding of both the courts that the appellants had become defaulters in the eyes of law. That will naturally mean that they were in default for more than two months at the time of filing of the suit. As such there is no substance in this submission of learned counsel for the appellants. 12. In the result, this Second Appeal is held to be not maintainable and the memorandum is accordingly rejected.