JUDGMENT : D.N. Upadhyay, J. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 23.04.2012, Decree dated 03.05.2012, passed and signed by the Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur in connection with Eviction Appeal No. 14 of 2010 whereby the Judgment dated 26.03.2010 and Decree dated 03.04.2010, passed and signed by learned Sub Judge – VI, Jamshedpur in connection with Title Eviction Suit No. 5 of 1997 has been upheld. The appellants were defendants in the Trial Court whereas the respondent was the plaintiff. 2. It appears from the plaint that the plaintiff being owner of house bearing holding no. 517-A, Kasidih Shop Area, Straight Mile Road, P.S. – Sakchi, Jamshedpur brought a Suit for evicting defendants from the suit premises described in Schedule-A, B, C and D of the plaint on the ground of wilful default in making payment of rent from the month of March, 1994 and they have also altered the structure without consent of plaintiff. The defendants failed to make payment of rent from the month of March, 1994 till February, 1997 and, therefore, the plaintiff prayed : (a) For a decree for Khas possession of the Schedule – A, B, C and D premises after evicting the defendants therefrom; (b) For a decree for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.225/-, Rs. 425/-, Rs.625/-and Rs.825/-for the respective schedule A, B, C and D premises for a period of 36 months from April, 1994 to March, 1997 amounting to Rs.75,600/-; (c) For cost of suit; (d) For any other relief(s) for which the plaintiff is entitled under the law. 3. It is contended by the plaintiff that he has acquired the suit property by inheritance and also on the basis of Deed of disclaim executed by other co-sharers in favour of the plaintiff. During pendency of their suit before the Trial Court, the suit property has been transferred and recorded in the name of plaintiff in the record of original lessee – M/s. Tata Steel, Jamshedpur. The plaintiff has brought more facts by making amendment in the plaint and those facts are that the suit property was initially acquired by Seikh Safdar Ali, son of Seikh Chulihan. Seikh Chulihan was having one brother named as Seikh Imaman. Seikh Imaman was having two sons namely Seikh Hashmi and Seikh Inayat Ali. The plaintiff has brought more facts by making amendment in the plaint and those facts are that the suit property was initially acquired by Seikh Safdar Ali, son of Seikh Chulihan. Seikh Chulihan was having one brother named as Seikh Imaman. Seikh Imaman was having two sons namely Seikh Hashmi and Seikh Inayat Ali. Seikh Safdar Ali was having two wives from whom he was having three sons and one daughter. Abdul Rauf, father of the plaintiff was son of Seikh Safdar Ali, born through his second wife Most. Wasihan. The plaintiff brought further facts that the litigation with regard to properties left by Safdar Ali had cropped up and Title Suit no. 26/ 1947 was instituted by and between the parties descendants of Chulihan. The litigation went up to the Supreme Court. The Deed of Gift dated 01.12.1928 executed by Safdar Ali and the Deed of Waqf dated 01.09.1921 in respect of properties left by Safdar Ali and Deed of Agreement dated 02.11.1937 have been declared invalid and not binding on the plaintiff. Later the matter was settled between the descendents of Seikh Safdar Ali and finally the suit property has fallen in the share of plaintiff and he became the absolute owner of the same. 4. It is further averred that Monazarul Haque, father of the defendants was inducted as a monthly tenant by Abdul Rauf, father of the plaintiff with respect to four different rooms standing under a big hall on the middle portion of the suit building on monthly rent at different rates for each of the rooms and at the time of filing of the suit monthly rent for the respective four rooms was Rs.200/-, Rs.600/-and Rs.800/-besides Rs.25/-for each room towards Municipal charges. After death of Monazarul Haque which occurred sometimes in the year 1995, the defendants 1 to 4 as sons and defendant no. 5 as unmarried daughter have become tenant under the plaintiff on the same terms and conditions as it was with said Monazarul Haque. The Rent for the tenanted premises has to be paid according to English Calender month and monthly rent was payable by the last day of the following months. Since the defendants have stopped making payment of rent from the month of March, 1994 and no rent was paid till March, 1997, the plaintiff has left with no option but to file suit for eviction against the defendants. Since the defendants have stopped making payment of rent from the month of March, 1994 and no rent was paid till March, 1997, the plaintiff has left with no option but to file suit for eviction against the defendants. 5. The defendants appeared after service of notice and filed written statement stating therein that plaintiff is not the owner of suit property rather the property belongs to Safdar Ali Waqf Estate being governed by Bihar State Waqf Board. As a matter of fact Monazarul Haque was inducted as a tenant by Mutawalli of Safdar Ali Waqf Estate on a piece of vacant land and said Monazarul Haque had constructed rooms on the land in question, therefore, suit is hit under the provisions of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, Specific Relief Act, Bihar State Waqf Board Act, Transfer of Property Act and other Acts. It is incorrect to say that plaintiff or his father Abdul Rauf had ever inducted either the defendants or their father in the suit premises on monthly rent and no rent receipt was ever granted either by Abdul Rauf or the plaintiff by their names. The rent was being paid to Safdar Ali Waqf Estate and accordingly rent receipts were being issued in a printed form with heading “Safdar Ali Waqf Estate”. 6. The plaintiff has brought certain new facts by way of amendment but the aforesaid facts stood unsubstantiated by evidence and, therefore, pleading without evidence could not be relied upon. It is incorrect to say that the property fell in the share of Abdul Rauf and the plaintiff inherited the property after death of Abdul Rauf and also on the basis of Deed of Relinquishment made by other co-sharers in favour of the plaintiff. 7. The learned Trial Court framed issues on the basis of pleadings and after considering the evidence and documents adduced and produced by the parties decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendants challenged the Judgement and Decree passed by the Trial Court by filing Eviction Appeal No. 14/ 2010 but the learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal by passing a cryptic judgement without application of mind and hence this Second Appeal on the following grounds : That the Court below have committed grave error by decreeing the suit on the facts which stood unsubstantiated. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the absolute owner of the property. The Courts below have not considered that suit property belongs to Safdar Ali Waqf Estate and the property was beyond the purview of transfer and inheritance. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable under Bihar Building (Lease, Eviction and Control) Act because vacant piece of land was given by Mutawalli to Monazarul Haque, father of the defendants. The lower appellate court, which is the last court of fact and law, has not applied judicial mind and did not discuss evidence and documents available on record. Neither independent discussion nor independent opinion by the lower appellate Court has been given on the issues involved. In nut shell, the lower appellate court has simply subscribed the findings of the trial court. The points indicated above suggests to formulate substantial question of law for just decision of this appeal. 8. I have gone through the Judgments of both the courts and the lower court records. The defendants have admitted their possession over the suit property described in Schedule-A, B, C and D of the plaint as that of the tenant and the schedule property, as described under Schedule-A, B, C and D of the plaint are four Pucca rooms situated within holding no. 517-A, Kasidih Lease Area, Jamshedpur. They have admitted that Monazarul Haque was inducted as a tenant on a piece of land on which he had erected some structures on his own but it is not indicated that the area so given on rent was divided in four different pieces of land. No document has been brought on record that Monazarul Haque had constructed rooms on the vacant land given to him on rent rather it is admitted that four different rooms on different amount of rent have been given to the defendants. 9. The plaintiff had introduced about the previous litigation and the outcome of the litigation relating to the suit property by bringing amendment in the plaint and those facts were substantiated by adducing evidence. Further amendment was brought to the extent that the property in question during pendency of suit was transferred and recorded in the name of plaintiff in the record of original lessee – M/s. Tata Steel and transfer document has well been proved. Further amendment was brought to the extent that the property in question during pendency of suit was transferred and recorded in the name of plaintiff in the record of original lessee – M/s. Tata Steel and transfer document has well been proved. The defendants who have admitted themselves to be tenant in the suit premises, cannot raise question regarding title of the plaintiff in a suit brought under Bihar Building (Lease, Eviction and Control) Act for ejectment. There is concurrent findings of both the Court that relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendants has well been established and defendants have badly defaulted in making payment of rent for more than two months. 10. All the points apparently raised by the counsel for the appellant are related to facts and for that both the Courts have given concurrent findings against the defendants/ appellants and I do not find any substantial question of law involved. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.