Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant-respondent-appellant challenging the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below. 3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 13 of 1999, which was filed by the plaintiff-appellant-respondents for eviction of the sole defendant on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiffs for the suit premises and also on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendant. The claim of the plaintiffs was based on six sale-deeds of 1997-98 executed by the admitted owner Ajay Singh in favour of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit premises containing two tinshedded rooms with sahan. 4. On the other hand, the claim of the defendant was that he was never a tenant of the plaintiffs, rather being the Barahil of the erstwhile owner Ajay Singh, he was permitted to reside in the suit premises by the said owner and on that basis he is living therein and is having his khatal. It was also claimed by the defendant that there being no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, provision of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity ) was not applicable and there was no question of any default in payment of rent by him nor was there any question of bona fide personal requirement of the plaintiffs. 5. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif, Biharsharif vide judgment and decree dated 23.05.2006 holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and hence the suit was not maintainable under the Act and the grounds of eviction cannot be entertained. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the plaintiffs filed Eviction Appeal No. 5 of 2006, which was allowed by the learned 1st. Additional District Judge, Nalanda by his judgment and decree dated 5.7.2007 holding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and decreeing the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below, the sole defendant has filed the instant second appeal. 6. Additional District Judge, Nalanda by his judgment and decree dated 5.7.2007 holding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and decreeing the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below, the sole defendant has filed the instant second appeal. 6. It is not disputed in this court by either of the parties that the original owner of the suit premises was Ajay Singh, who had executed six sale-deeds of 1997-98 in favour of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit land. The learned court of appeal below has also found that the claim of the defendant was that he was in permissive possession of the suit premises, but there is nothing on the record to show that any alleged co-sharer or family member of the said vendor had ever challenged the sale-deeds in question. Furthermore the learned court of appeal below also found that earlier the defendant remained as tenant in the suit premises, in which he used to keep his she-buffaloes and ran his business of milk and fodder. Hence, admittedly the defendant was not the owner of the suit premises, whereas, the plaintiffs have been able to prove their right and title over the suit premises by oral and documentary evidence including the registered deeds of sale. 7. So far the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned, surprisingly enough to deny the plaintiffs claim to tenancy, the defendant did not produce the said original owner Ajay Singh as his witness, whereas, the relationship of landlord and tenant was proved by the plaintiffs witnesses although there was no documentary evidence with regard to tenancy, regarding which, according to the plaintiffs, the receipt was given by the plaintiffs on plain papers without any counterfoil. Question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is a question of fact, which has been decided by the learned court of appeal below, which is a final court of facts and hence there being no legal perversity in the said finding, nor there being any error of law or record or even non- consideration of any material, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the said finding. 8. 8. So far question of personal necessity of the plaintiffs is concerned, it had been specifically claimed by them that they are themselves running their business in a tenanted premises and as such they require the suit premises for their business and this fact has not been denied by the defendant. In the said circumstances, the finding of the learned court of appeal below that the plaintiffs had bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises appears to be legal and proper. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of this Court in case of Tiptop and others V/s. Indramani Devi, reported in A.I.R. 1982 Patna 190( Para 23) as well as in case of Dr. Hemchandra V/s. Smt. Anjana Lal reported in 1987 P.L.J.R. 582 (Para 13). 9. So far the question of partial eviction is concerned, it is quite apparent that the plaintiffs had pleaded that they had bona fide personal requirement for the entire premises but the defendant nowhere pleaded that the requirement of the plaintiffs would be satisfied by partial eviction although it is a settled law that once personal necessity is proved the onus shifts on the tenant to show that partial eviction shall satisfy the personal necessity of the plaintiffs. Reference in this regard may be made to two decisions of this Court in case of Food Corporation of India and Others V/s. Bishun Properties and Enterprises and Others, reported in 1995 B.B.C.J. 711 as well as in case of M/s Bata India Ltd. V/s. Dr. Md. Qamruzzarna, reported in 1993(1) P.L.J.R. 87(DB). Furthermore, from paragraph no. 2 of the judgment of the learned court of appeal below, it is quite manifest that the said Court was aware of the point of partial eviction and hence compliance of the relevant provision is complete and the judgment cannot be legally held to be bad for non-consideration of the issue of partial eviction. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of this Court in case of Haweli Ram Bhatia V/s. Smt. Rajwanti Devi and Others, reported in 1984 P.L.J.R. 207. Furthermore where the tenant is himself not agreeing to partial eviction, failure of court to consider it does not vitiate the judgment. Reference in this regard be made to a decision of this Court in case of Om Prakash Sharma V/s. Kishun Mistry, reported in 1985 P.L.J.R. 727. 10. Furthermore where the tenant is himself not agreeing to partial eviction, failure of court to consider it does not vitiate the judgment. Reference in this regard be made to a decision of this Court in case of Om Prakash Sharma V/s. Kishun Mistry, reported in 1985 P.L.J.R. 727. 10. So far question of default in payment of rent is concerned, it is nowhere the case of the defendant that he had paid rent to the plaintiffs, rather his case throughout had been that he was not required to pay any rent to the plaintiffs. In the said circumstances, non-payment of rent remains an admitted fact and hence the learned court of appeal below allowed the claim of the plaintiffs and realized that there were arrears of rent, for recovery of which, the plaintiffs were permitted to file a separate suit as no relief for arrears of rent had been made in the suit, out of which this second appeal has arisen. 11. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLl Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.