JUDGMENT : This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2014 and 21.06.2014 respectively passed in Eviction Appeal no.01/2011 by the District Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2010 and 07.01.2011 respectively of the Munsif, Chaibasa, in Eviction Suit no.11/2009 whereby plaintiff's suit was decreed for eviction of the defendants on the ground of default and personal necessity. 2. The appellants herein were the defendants in the trial court and the respondents were the plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience they shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants. 3. The plaintiffs had instituted the suit pleading that their grand mother Shiv Dulari Devi was the lessee of the Khas Mahal lease hold property. She had inducted Madan Lal Sharma, the father of the defendants, as a tenant in a portion of the suit property. That on demise of Shiv Dulari Devi, their mother-Moti Devi came in possession of the lease hold suit property and Madan Lal continued to be a tenant. That Madan Lal Sharma died and the defendants continued in possession as tenants. That the rent was payable on monthly basis as per English Calendar and after the death of Moti Devi, the plaintiffs as legal heirs became the landlord. It is pleaded that Moti Devi used to grant rent receipts in the name of defendant no.2 and Mina Sharma, wife of defendant no.4 used to sign on the back of the counterfoils of the rent receipts. It is alleged that the defendants last paid the rent of the suit property in the month of February, 2009 on 16.03.2009 and the rent receipt was duly granted by the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the defendants failed to pay rent from March to June, 2009. Defendant no.2 had sent rent through money order on two occasions vide Money Order no.335 dated 12.08.2008 and secondly vide Money Order no.425 dated 03.09.2009 both for Rs.250/-which was refused by the plaintiffs. It is pleaded that since the defendants have not paid the lawfully payable rent for more than two months they have become defaulter and are liable to be evicted from the suit premises and the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the arrears of rent from March, 2009 to June, 2009. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that they are residing in a portion of the same holding on which the suit premises is situated. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that they are residing in a portion of the same holding on which the suit premises is situated. That the plaintiffs have got a large family consisting of their respective wives and five sons. That the sons of the plaintiffs are of marriageable age and the plaintiffs intend to solemnise their marriage at the earliest. That there is paucity of accommodation within the premises occupied by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs require additional accommodation to fulfill their bonafide requirement and the suit premises in occupation of the defendants is the best suitable accommodation as it is situated adjacent to the suit premises of the plaintiffs. That the need of the plaintiffs cannot be fulfilled by partial eviction of the defendants and the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of eviction against the defendants on the ground of bonafide personal necessity. 4. The defendants contested the suit and filed their written statement stating that the plaintiffs have no cause of action and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. That the father of the defendants was never inducted as a tenant in the suit premises at any point of time. That the father of the defendants was a priest in the house of Shiv Dulari Devi and he used to perform puja and other religious ceremonies due to which said Shiv Dulari Devi, out of love, gifted the suit premises to the father of the defendants, by executing a document on 01.02.1975. The father of the defendants came in possession of the suit premises on the basis of the gift and after the death of their father the defendants along with other heirs came in possession of the portion of the house in question on their own right and title. That the suit premises belongs to the father of the defendants and the defendants are still residing in the house situated on a portion of holding. That there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants, hence, question of default in payment of rent and eviction is not tenable. The defendants have denied that the wife of defendant no.4 had ever signed on the rent receipts neither had defendant no.2 sent any money order as rent in respect of the suit premises. The defendants have denied that the wife of defendant no.4 had ever signed on the rent receipts neither had defendant no.2 sent any money order as rent in respect of the suit premises. It is stated that the suit was instituted in the month of July, 2009 hence, there was no occasion for the defendants to send the rent through money order in September, 2009. It is alleged that such statement has been introduced by way of amendment as an after thought. That the plaintiffs' bonafide requirement of the suit premises is not correct as there is a portion larger than the suit premises which has been let out to one Chhabi Rani Kar. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed six issues which are as follows:- “(i) Whether the present suit is maintainable in its present form and for the relief claimed? (ii) Whether plaintiffs have got valid cause of action? (iii) Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary party? (iv) Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants? (v) Whether the plaintiffs require the suit premises for their personal bonafide necessity and can a partial eviction of defendants from the suit premises, meet the need of plaintiffs? (vi) Whether defendants have not paid rent from the month of March, 2009 thereby became defaulter and are defendants in arrears of rent? (vii) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get the relief claimed?” 6. The plaintiffs adduced oral and documentary evidence. They examined six witnesses and adduced documentary evidence-Ext.1 to 1/n series which are counter foils of rent receipts; Ext.2 to 2/e-signature of Mina Sharma on the back side of counterfoil of rent receipts-Nos.113,117,122,128,137,307; Ext.3 is the municipal tax receipt no.6802; Ext.4 is the entries of money order no.355 dated 12.08.2009 in refusal register; Ext.5 are entries of money order no.425 dated 12.08.2009 in refusal register; Ext.6 is the entry dated 14.08.2009 in postman's register; Ext.7 is the entry no.5 dated 20.08.2009 in postman's register; Ext.8 is the entry no.2 dated 4.9.2009 in postman's register and Ext.9 is the entry no.3 dated 8.9.2009 in postman's register. 7. The defendants also examined five witnesses and they adduced documentary evidence, namely, Ext.A, the gift deed dated 01.02.1975 and Ext.B, signature of S.M.Sarda on gift deed dated 01.02.1975. 8. 7. The defendants also examined five witnesses and they adduced documentary evidence, namely, Ext.A, the gift deed dated 01.02.1975 and Ext.B, signature of S.M.Sarda on gift deed dated 01.02.1975. 8. On the basis of the evidence on record the trial court found that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants and held that the defendants had defaulted in payment of rent and the plaintiffs had bonafide requirement of the suit premises and accordingly, decreed the suit for eviction of the defendants and directed the defendants to hand over the vacant possession and pay the arrears of rent from March to June, 2009 within a period of two months. 9. Being aggrieved the defendants preferred the appeal before the District Judge-I at Chaibasa. The learned District Judge, after considering the arguments advanced by the parties and on appreciation of the evidence on record affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court by the judgment which is impugned before this Court in the present Second Appeal. 10. Learned counsel on behalf of defendants/appellants has submitted that the courts below have committed perversity in findings by holding that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the defendants/appellants. It is argued by the learned counsel that on perusal of the evidence of P.W.6 i.e. postal peon, discussed by the courts below it would reveal that the pleading of the plaintiffs/respondents that the defendants had remitted the rent through two money orders has not been substantiated because P.W.6 has stated that the amount sent by money order no.425 dated 03.09.2009 i.e. Exts.8 and 9, was handed over to one D.V.Kar and he does not know the name of the person to whom he had returned the money with respect to entry dated 20.08.2009 of M.O.No.335 dated 12.08.2009. It is strenuously argued that this establishes the fact that the postman did not hand over the money to the defendants rather it was handed over to one D.V.Kar which falsifies the pleading of the plaintiffs that the defendants had remitted the rent through two money orders. It is strenuously argued that this establishes the fact that the postman did not hand over the money to the defendants rather it was handed over to one D.V.Kar which falsifies the pleading of the plaintiffs that the defendants had remitted the rent through two money orders. It is contended that the signature on the rent receipt (Ext.2 to 2/e) alleged to be that of Mina Sharma, the wife of defendant no.4, has been denied by her but the trial court without getting the signature verified by an expert has committed an apparent error in recording the finding that the rent receipts bore the signature of Mina Devi. Learned counsel has also relied on the decision in the case of Rajendra Tiwary vs. Basudeo Prasad and Anr., reported in (2002)1 SCC 90 , and argued that the existence of landlord and tenant relationship is the sine qua non for entertaining a suit under the rent control statute. It is argued that the courts below have failed to appreciate that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant. It is argued that the courts below have failed to appreciate that the defendants were in possession of the suit property in their own right and title on the basis of the gift deed executed by Shiv Dulari Devi in favour of Madan Lal Sharma, the father of the defendants. It is argued that in the absence of any evidence regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties the courts below should have dismissed the suit and such perversity in findings of the fact involves a substantial question of law for adjudication in the instant appeal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs, while opposing the interlocutory application under Order 41 Rule 5 C.P.C filed by the plaintiffs, has submitted that the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants is not tenable as the courts below have concurrently held that there is relationship of landlord and tenant and the defendants have defaulted in payment of rent. That there is bonafide requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiffs due to increase in the number of members of the family. 12. Heard. That there is bonafide requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiffs due to increase in the number of members of the family. 12. Heard. It is well settled that High Court while hearing a second appeal is not required to re-appreciate the evidence when there is concurrent findings on facts by the courts below. This Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C only when a substantial question of law is involved. The argument advanced by the learned counsel that there is perversity in the findings of the courts below is not acceptable because the courts below have appreciated the evidence of P.W.6 i.e. the postal peon, who has stated that he had returned Ext.8 to the family members of Gopal Sharma who had informed him that they had sent the money order no.335. That defendant-Gopal Sharma told him that Kanhaiya Lal Sharma was residing at Jamshedpur along with his family members. The testimony of P.W.6 on this point has not been disturbed or dented in cross-examination as is evident from the impugned judgment. Both the courts below have meticulously examined the documentary as well as the oral evidence and recorded the finding that one of the money orders was sent by one Kanhaiya Lal Sharma i.e. the brother of defendants. The appellate court has formulated the points for determination in terms of Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C and applied its judicial mind to the obtaining evidence and discussed the same. The courts below have elaborately discussed the evidence with respect to signature of Mina Sharma, wife of defendant no.4 on the counter foils of the rent receipts and rightly held that the Mina Sharma has signed on the counter foils of rent receipts. The court below has also examined and discussed Ext.A, the purported gift deed alleged to have been executed by Shiv Dulari Devi, grand mother of the plaintiffs, in favour of Madan Lal Sharma, the father of the defendants. The court below has also examined and discussed Ext.A, the purported gift deed alleged to have been executed by Shiv Dulari Devi, grand mother of the plaintiffs, in favour of Madan Lal Sharma, the father of the defendants. On meticulous examination of the evidence it has found that in the gift deed it is stated that since Madan Lal Sharma was residing for a long time in the house and used to look after her family hence, Shiv Dulari Devi gifted the house to him whereas D.W.4, S.M.Sarda, a signatory witness to the gift deed, has stated that Madan Lal Sharma used to live in the house of Shiv Dulari Devi as a priest and she had kept Madan Lal Sharma in the suit property to perform the puja and had gifted a portion of the house occupied by him by executing the document and he had signed as a witness. His signature is marked Ext.B. In cross-examination he has stated that he does not know the name of the scribe of the deed and at the time of execution of the deed none of the sons or the daughters of Shiv Dulari Devi were present. The courts below have held that it was an unregistered gift deed. It was written on an unstamped plain paper. There was no recital regarding the fact that the father of the defendant used to perform puja in the house of Shiv Dulari Devi and Shiv Dulari Devi had gifted the property to him for the services rendered as a priest by him. The courts below have found and held that there was over-writing and the gift deed was executed in the absence of the family members. D.W.1 i.e. Gopal Sharma, has deposed that Ext.A does not state that property has been gifted to the father of the defendants because he used to perform puja in the house of Shiv Dulari Devi. That D.W.2, Mina Sharma i.e. the wife of D.W.1, had deposed that after the death of her father-in-law when the box was opened they found the deed of gift. D.W.3, Kanhaiya Lal Sharma has deposed that after filing of the case they inquired about the plot no. and khata no. That D.W.2, Mina Sharma i.e. the wife of D.W.1, had deposed that after the death of her father-in-law when the box was opened they found the deed of gift. D.W.3, Kanhaiya Lal Sharma has deposed that after filing of the case they inquired about the plot no. and khata no. mentioned in deed of gift and they came to know that it was with respect to the suit premises and he admitted that till the pendency of the present suit he had no knowledge about the gift deed dated 01.02.1975.D.W.5, Devbrat Sharma deposed that he had seen the deed gift once in the year 1980-85. The court below has also considered the fact that defendant no.1 was working in the firm of D.W.4 who is a witness to the deed gift but the said witness had never informed about the existence of the deed because D.W.1 admitted that he got the deed of gift only after filing of the case. In the impugned judgment the material evidence has been throughly discussed and satisfaction has been recorded that the pleading of the defendants is not sustainable. That the plaintiffs have adduced evidence to establish the fact that there is relationship of landlord and tenant. The court below has on analysis of the evidence held that there is bonafide requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiffs. 13. It is settled legal position that the High Court in a second appeal cannot substitute its own findings on re-appreciation of evidence merely on the ground that another view was possible. Moreover, the interference with the concurrent findings of fact is unwarranted when there is no perversity, capriciousness and arbitrariness in the findings of fact by the courts below. It is well settled that there is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact and the second appeal can be admitted only when a substantial question of law is involved. The questions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are purely questions of fact and do not involve any substantial question of law. 14. In the result, this second appeal stands dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the courts below is hereby affirmed.