Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. Both these appeals have been heard analogous under Order-41, Rule 11 C.P.C. as parties are the same and the common Judgment of the Appellate court have been challenged in both the Second Appeals. 2. Second Appeal No. 69/2002 is barred by limitation and a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed giving some reasons regarding the delay in the official process of filing the appeal. The grounds are not very plausible. However, the limitation matter can be considered only if there is a strong case for the appellant Bihar State Financial Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to as the Corporation) in Second Appeal No. 69/2002. 3. Second Appeal No. 184/2001 has been filed by the defendant of Title Eviction Suit No. 4/1994. Challenge in both the appeals have been-made in respect of the Judgment of the Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 24/1997. 4. The short fact is necessary to be stated for appreciateing the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Admittedly, the suit permises belonged to the plaintiff-respondents and the same was given in lease, with some terms and conditions to the Defendant No. 1-Appellant Alokesh Choudhary for setting up a business in the name and style of Defendant No. 2. The said tenancy was created by lease for a fixed term of period with renewal clause and admittedly no renewal had been taken up by the plaintiff rather the period has lapsed on 31.12.1990. A small house was also constructed over a portion of the suit premises for which also there was a monthly tenancy at the rental of Rs. 100/- per month. Eviction of tenancy has been sought for on the grounds of default of arrears of rent as claimed and also for personal necessity and expiry of lease. While setting up of the industry in the name and style of Defendant No. 2 a huge amount of loan was taken by the Defendant No. 1 from the Corporation and it was taken vide knowledge of the plaintiff-landlord. There is a clause in the lease Agreement to the effect that if any eviction is to be sought from the side of the plaintiff regarding the Defendant No. 1, then information must be given to the Corporation. In that way, the Corporation has also been made a party to the Eviction Suit. There is a clause in the lease Agreement to the effect that if any eviction is to be sought from the side of the plaintiff regarding the Defendant No. 1, then information must be given to the Corporation. In that way, the Corporation has also been made a party to the Eviction Suit. Relationship of Land-lord and tenant is admitted and it is also admitted that no renewal had been taken. The suit was contested both by the Corporation and also by the tenant Defendant No. 1. 5. The trial court held that when there was a contract between the tenant and the Corporation within the knowledge of the plaintiff-landlord then until and unless that loan agreement is being exhausted no ejectment can be granted. 6. Against such dismissal an appeal was filed being Title Appeal No. 24/1987 wherein the Appellate court rightly held that the land-lord has got every right to evict his tenant if the grounds of eviction are covered as per the B.B.C. Act and T.P. Act. The lease period has already expired. Even if the renewal clause is taken into consideration then also the period of renewal has already lapsed during the pendency of the suit and appeal. Practically, defendant-appellant i.e. the tenant had no legs to stand in the present case as tenancy is admitted. The grounds of eviction are almost admitted and was proved from the side of the Land-lord. 7. Now, the position remains only that Corporation had invested a huge amount by way of loan to the Defendant No. 1 in respect of the lease-hold land and some valuable machineries and other fixtures are there in the lease-hold land. That part has been considered by the Appellate Court very ably and asked the Defendant No. 1 to take away those machineries. No liability remains with the Land-lord in relation to agreement of loan between the defendants. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the Corporation. 8. Mr. Sahi, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellant-Corporation has submitted very fairly that he has got a limited scope having to say in the matter of eviction between the plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 but as the loan was granted within the knowledge of the lessor then some obligation as per the agreement itself remains with the lessor. According to him, no notice has been served on the Corporation before filing of the present suit. This is not correct. From Paragraphs-14, 24 and 25 of the Appellate Courts Judgment it is clear that notice under Section 106 T. P. Act and also other provision of the T.P. Act for determination of the lease had been served not only on the defendants but such notice had also been served on the Corporation. So, the suit was filed for eviction after being given proper information to the Corporation. 9. In that way, I do not find any force in the appeals. Although, the impugned Judgment is a Judgment of reversal but I find that whatever wrong has been committed by the trial court had been corrected by the Appellate Court. It might be that the Corporation shall have to suffer a financial loss but for this they have to blame themselves only. They should have made more binding conditions while granting loan to the Defendant No. 1 regarding the leasehold land. The liability of Defendant No. 1 with the Corporation shall remain as it is even after eviction also and they shall have to proceed against the Defendant No. 1 in an appropriate forum. 10. Both the appeals are, therefore, rejected under Order-41, Rule 11 C.P.C. There will be no order as to costs.