Judgment D.N. Upadhyay, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present Second Appeal has been preferred against Judgment and Decree passed by District Judge, Simdega in Title Appeal No. 01 of 2011 whereby the Judgment and Decree passed by Munsif, Simdega in Eviction Suit No. 13 of 2008 has been affirmed and the appeal stood dismissed. 3. The appellant was defendant no. 2 in the original Eviction Suit No. 13 of 2008 whereas respondent no. 1 was the plaintiff and the respondent no.2 – original tenant was defendant no. 1. It is contended in the plaint that disputed shop is part and parcel of Simdega Club Complex constructed on Plot No. 699, Khata No. 108, Village – Saldega, P.S. -Simdega, District – Simdega, area measuring 2.42 Acres. The suit was filed through the Secretary of Simdega Club Complex for evicting the defendants on the ground that initially suit premises (shop no. 8) was given to defendant no. 1 on monthly rent of Rs.700/-per month on the basis of an agreement but it was sub-let to defendant no. 2 (appellant). The defendant no. 1 had deposited Rs.55,000/-in advance with the plaintiff and agreed that a sum of Rs.500/-per month shall be adjusted from the said advance amount in 90 months to the tune of Rs.45,000/-and he will pay balance rent of Rs.200/-per month for the said period. It was also agreed that balance sum of Rs.10,000/-shall be remained with the plaintiff and it will be treated as security money and shall be adjusted at the time of vacating the premises i.e. after delivery of possession to the landlord in good tenable condition. The tenancy commenced from 01.01.2001 when the defendant acquired the possession of said shop premises. 4. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant no. 1 paid the agreed amount of Rs.200/-per month as rent up to December, 2005 and thereafter he had stopped making payment of rent from the month of January, 2006. As per the agreement, the defendant no. 1 was supposed to pay Rs.200/-per month till completion of 90 months from the date of commencement of the tenancy and thereafter he had to pay Rs.700/-per month as rent. As per the agreement, the defendant no. 1 was supposed to pay Rs.200/-per month till completion of 90 months from the date of commencement of the tenancy and thereafter he had to pay Rs.700/-per month as rent. Since the defendant had failed to pay the rent from the month of January, 2006 to June, 2008 at the rate of Rs.200/-per month and Rs.700/-per month for July and August, 2008, a total sum of Rs.7,400/-has become due and in this way the defendant no. 1 became defaulter. The second ground for evicting the defendants in the plaint was that defendant no. 1 had sublet the suit premises to defendant no. 2 which was not permitted as per the agreement and, therefore, suit was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent as indicated above and also on account of subletting the suit premises violating the terms and conditions of the agreement. 5. The suit was valued at Rs.8,400/-equivalent to 12 months rent and accordingly Court Fee was paid. The plaintiff had prayed for a decree for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises, for a decree for arrears of rent of Rs.7,400/-, cost of litigation and other relief or reliefs which the Court may deem fit. 6. The defendants appeared before the trial court and filed their respective written statements. The defendant no. 2 – appellant has denied the relation of landlord and tenant with the plaintiff and pleaded no cause of action for the suit ever arose and the suit is not maintainable as against him. The specific plea that the defendant no. 2 has taken is that the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 11/2005 in the Court of Sub Judge, Simdega against the State of Jharkhand and others and it was dismissed for default and restoration petition being Miscellaneous Case No. 01/2005 – 06 is pending. It was contended that the plaintiff had constructed shop premises including the disputed shop on a Government land without any authority and for that Deputy Commissioner, Simdega had served with a notice on the plaintiff. When the defendant no. 2 could learn about the said situation, he had started paying rent to Circle Officer, Simdega and, therefore, he is the tenant under Government of Jharkhand. The suit is not maintainable in its present form and also for non joinder of necessary party. 7. The defendant no. When the defendant no. 2 could learn about the said situation, he had started paying rent to Circle Officer, Simdega and, therefore, he is the tenant under Government of Jharkhand. The suit is not maintainable in its present form and also for non joinder of necessary party. 7. The defendant no. 1 in his written statement admitted that he was inducted in the suit premises on a monthly rent on the basis of an agreement dated 30.12.2000 and paid advance of Rs.55,000/-to the plaintiff. He has further pleaded that out of said advance amount of Rs.55,000/-, Rs. 45,000/-was adjusted in the rent of 90 months, completing in the month of June, 2008. Since the defendant no. 1 had no means to run the business, suit premises was sub-let to defendant no. 2 on monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-and for that agreement dated 19.02.2001 was executed between defendants no. 1 and 2. 8. The trial court had framed altogether six issues including Issue No. 3 whether the plaintiff and defendants have relation of landlord and tenant. The parties to the suit had adduced evidence and proved documents in support of their respective claim. At the adjudication, the Trial Court has held that the defendant no. 1 had admitted the tenancy agreement dated 30.12.2000 (Ext.-2). Ext.-1 is the Deed of Agreement executed on 19.02.2001 by which the defendant no. 1 let out the suit premises to defendant no. 2. Ext.-1/A and 1/D are the signature appearing on the agreement dated 19.02.2001 whereas ext.-2/A and 2/D are the signature of the parties appearing on Ext.-2. The aforesaid agreements – Exts.-1 and 2 have been marked without objection and, therefore, relying on those documents the learned trial court has held that suit premises was given on monthly rent to defendant no. 1 by the plaintiff and later defendant no. 1 let out the said shop premises to defendant no. 2. Therefore, relation between defendant and plaintiff was that of tenant and landlord and accordingly suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff. 9. The lower appellate court had elaborately discussed all the issues involved on the basis of documents and evidences available on record. Since the tenancy agreement executed by and between the parties were admitted and marked exhibits without objection, the lower appellate court concurred the finding of the trial court. 10. 9. The lower appellate court had elaborately discussed all the issues involved on the basis of documents and evidences available on record. Since the tenancy agreement executed by and between the parties were admitted and marked exhibits without objection, the lower appellate court concurred the finding of the trial court. 10. The appellant has tried to create a substantial question of law that finding of both the Subordinate Courts are perverse because the appellant never admitted signature appearing on the documents and he had brought on record documents to prove that he is tenant under Government of Jharkhand. 11. Be that as it may, defendant no. 1 did not dispute that he was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises on the basis of Ext.-2 and then suit premises was let out to defendant no. 2 – appellant on the basis of agreement (Ext-1). Appellant though challenged the genuineness of said agreement but failed to bring on record any evidence to prove his contention. The argument advanced by the learned counsel that according to Section 101 of the Evidence Act, the plaintiff had to prove his case, since plaintiff has failed to discharge onus lies on him, findings of Subordinate Courts are not tenable and, therefore, a substantial question of law is involved and that may be framed and the appeal may be admitted, do not appear to be acceptable. Both the Subordinate Courts have relied upon Exts. -1 and 2 the deed of tenancy agreement which have been proved in accordance with law and oral evidence of the parties in which the appellant has failed to bring on record as to how and when he was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by the Government of Jharkhand and, therefore, admitted position is that suit premises was let out to defendant no. 1 who sublet it to the defendant no. 2. 12. In view of concurrent finding of the Sub-ordinate courts, I do not find any substantial question of law is involved and required to be decided. This appeal stands dismissed.