ORDER Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. The defendant-appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22nd December, 2003 passed in Title Appeal No. 35 of 2003, upholding and affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.9.1995 passed by learned Sub Judge, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 89 of 1990. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit praying relief for a decree for declaration of his title and for recovery of khas possession and also for permanent injunction. 3. The plaintiffs case was that the suit land appertaining to Khata No. 16 and 143, Plot No. 3334, area 62 decimals out of 17 Katthas and 15 chatak and plot No. 2019 area 15 Kathas and 8 chataks upon which one single storied building having two separate flats was constructed, consisting of 5 rooms, one kitchen, sanitary latrine, one bathroom and three verandahs of which the plaintiff-company is the owner. The said property of the company M/s Jitendra Investment Company was being looked after by one of its directors, namely, Sri J.K. Agarwala. The defendant happens to be the managers of the sister cavern of the plaintiff-Company namely Anup Male-ables Ltd. He was introduced to the said Director Shri Agrawalla by the then Manager of the firm M/s. Anup Maleables one Shri D.N. Jha. The defendant, thereafter, requested to allow him to reside in the said premises on the assurance that he will vacate the same whenever the vacant possession of the premises is required by them. It has been stated that when the Company required the suit premises for accommodation of its employee who is residing outside Dhanbad, the defendant was requested to vacate the premises. When he did not vacate inspite of several requests, a notice dated 1.5.1990 was served on the defendant requesting to deliver vacant possession. But inspite of the same, he did not vacate and hand over the possession. The defendant, on the contrary, replied the notice, stating that he was in-ducted as a monthly tenant in the premises since 1978 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand) per month. He has let out a portion to a sub- tenant, Rajiv Ranjan at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- (Rupees Three Hundred) per month and that the plaintiff company has entered into an agreement for sale of the said property with the defendant on a consideration of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand) per month. He has let out a portion to a sub- tenant, Rajiv Ranjan at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- (Rupees Three Hundred) per month and that the plaintiff company has entered into an agreement for sale of the said property with the defendant on a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) out of which the defendant has paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) as part payment of the said consideration amount. It has been stated by the plaintiff that the said plea of agreement is a got up story and any such deed of agreement must be a manufactured document, deliberately created with malicious intention. The Company or its director had never received any amount nor any of the directors has put signature on the alleged agreement dated 5.8.1988. 4. The defendant appeared and contested the suit. In his written statement, he has taken several grounds of law and inter-alia stated that M/s. Anup Maleables Ltd. is a sister concern of the plaintiff-company and that the allegation that defendant was allowed only temporary accommodation in the suit premises is wholly baseless. The original defendant subsequently entered into an agreement for sale of the said suit premises on a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) out of which Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh) was already paid as a part payment of the consideration amount. The defendant, thereafter, continued in possession as such over the entire land and house as a purchaser and the plea of his possession as permissive is baseless. It has been stated that the defendant has been still continuing in possession as per the agreement of sale. 5. On the basis of the said pleadings, several issues were framed by the Trial Court. The parties led their evidences, both oral and documentary. The trial Court on due appraisal and consideration of the facts, evidences and materials on record, came to the finding that the plaintiff has got subsisting title over the suit premises and the defendant was a mere licensee and his licence stood revoked by the legal notice dated 1.5.1990 and ultimately upon the death of the original defendant. The present defendants are in occupation of the premises, merely on sufferance. Learned Court below, further found and held that the plaintiff is entitled to the decree prayed for including the decree for eviction of the defendants. The present defendants are in occupation of the premises, merely on sufferance. Learned Court below, further found and held that the plaintiff is entitled to the decree prayed for including the decree for eviction of the defendants. Learned Trial Court decided almost all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit directing the defendant to hand over khas possession of the suit premises. 6. The defendants, thereafter, preferred appeal in the Court of District Judge, Dhanbad. The same was registered as Title Appeal No. 35 of 2003. The said appeal was finally heard and decided by the Additional District Judge X, Dhanbad. In view of the grounds taken by the appellant, the Lower Appellate Court also discussed the evidences and materials on record issue-wise and after scrutiny and discussion of the facts, materials and evidences on record, held that the plaintiff has got title to the suit building and that the defendants possession over the suit premises is as a licensee, which was revoked by the plaintiff and that the defendants arc liable to be ejected. Learned Lower Appellate Court, thus, concurred with the findings of facts arrived at by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment and decree. 7. Mrs. M.M. Pal. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Court below has not properly appreciated the evidences adduced by the parties and has erroneously placed heavy reliance on the expert opinion though the said opinion was produced on behalf of the plaintiff themselves. Learned Counsel submitted that any expert opinion brought on record at the instance of the party cannot be relied upon in deciding the controversy between the parties and as such the judgments and decrees based on such evidence is vitiated in law. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Courts below have also held the defendants possession as a licensee. Though he was initially a tenant and subsequently his possession was that of a purchaser by virtue of the said agreement dated 5.12.1988 (Exhibit A1) and that the Courts below have erroneously held the plaintiffs possession as permissive possession, as a licensee, which is wholly illegal and perverse. 8. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and carefully perusing the record and the impugned judgments and decrees. 8. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and carefully perusing the record and the impugned judgments and decrees. I find that the findings of the Court below are based on appreciation and consideration of the evidences including the evidence of the expert opinion. There was no material in rebuttal of the said expert opinion. Learned Courts below have also considered the other documentary and oral evidences and have recorded their findings that the defendant is in possession of the premises as a licensee and that the plaintiff has got ownership and title over the suit property. The said concurrent finding of the two Courts on the said facts is binding on this Court. The same cannot be interfered with by this Court in its second appellate jurisdiction. I find no ground giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided by this Court in this second appeal. This appeal, is, accordingly, dismissed.