JUDGMENT : 1. This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the appellant against the judgment dated 14th December 2001 and the decree dated 11th January, 2002 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jamshedpur in Eviction Appeal No. 17 of 1994/13 of 1997, by which, the 3rd Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur has been pleased to allow the appeal preferred by the appellant by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and directed the respondent-defendant to vacate the tenanted premises within three months. 2. The plaintiff is the respondent in this appeal. The Title Eviction Suit No. 48/1990 was filed by the plaintiff/appellant/respondent for a decree of eviction against the defendant from schedule ‘A’ premises, which was dismissed. The plaintiff filed the suit praying therein for a decree of eviction against the defendant from the suit premises. The suit premises is a quarter belonging to the plaintiffs which was let out to the defendant by the plaintiff-company on monthly rent of Rs.33.50 per month. The monthly tenancy is according to English calendar month. The house was allotted as per house permit A/2970 dated 3.10.1978 w.e.f. 4.10.1978. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant became a defaulter in payment of monthly rent from April 1998. Inspite of repeated demand, he failed to pay the same, thus he became liable to be evicted. It is further case of the plaintiff that there are 35,000 employees in the company but there are only 16,000 houses/quarters thus it is necessary to get vacant possession of the quarter for providing accommodation to its employees. 3. The defendant appeared and filed their written statement and claimed that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit premises and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. They denied tenancy. They claimed that the house permit, which the plaintiff is claiming is forged and manufactured. They claimed that since the house does not belong to the plaintiff, there is no question of requiring the same for its employees. The defendant claimed that only with a view to harass the defendant, this suit was filed. They denied tenancy. They claimed that the house permit, which the plaintiff is claiming is forged and manufactured. They claimed that since the house does not belong to the plaintiff, there is no question of requiring the same for its employees. The defendant claimed that only with a view to harass the defendant, this suit was filed. It is further claimed that as the defendant, who is the Union, filed a criminal proceeding against the plaintiff and the plaintiff is trying to compel and pressurize the defendant by filing this case. Further ornamental plea has been taken by the defendant about non-maintainability of the suit. 4. The trial court framed seven issues, which are as follows. (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Has the plaintiff cause of action for the suit? (iii) Is there relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? (iv) Whether the defendant failed to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.33.50 per moth form April, 1988 of the suit premises and is it defaulter in the eye of law? (v) Does the plaintiff require the suit quarter reasonably and in good faith for accommodation of its employees? (vi) Has the plaintiff title over the suit premises? (vii) To what reliefs or relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? 5. Four persons were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. Several documents were also examined by the plaintiffs. On behalf of the defendants only one person was examined and certified copy of order-sheet in complaint case No. 134/1990 was also exhibited. 6. The trial court decided issue No. (iii) and (iv) i.e. the question in relation to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the default with regard to monthly payment of rent against the plaintiff holding that the plaintiffs has failed to prove that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. So far as issue No. (v) is concerned, which relates to the necessity of the plaintiff to acquire the premises on bona fide ground for personal necessity, the court held that since the plaintiffs has brought nothing on record to show that the premises belongs to them, the question of personal necessity of the plaintiff does not arise. So far as issue No. (v) is concerned, which relates to the necessity of the plaintiff to acquire the premises on bona fide ground for personal necessity, the court held that since the plaintiffs has brought nothing on record to show that the premises belongs to them, the question of personal necessity of the plaintiff does not arise. The court also held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that only 16000 quarters are there which is not sufficient to fulfill the need of the plaintiff and in absence of such evidence, the aforesaid issue cannot be decided in favour of the plaintiff. The issue of ownership has not been decided as the same being an eviction suit, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the court to decide the question of title in simplicitor eviction suit. The court further held that when the plaintiff has failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant, it is not necessary to delve into the issue of ownership of the property and thus, the trial court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the landlord-plaintiff preferred Eviction Appeal No. 17/1994. The appellate court has not framed any fresh issue and it decided the issues already framed by the trial court. After independently the evidences of the parties, the appellate court has held that the plaintiff has proved the relationship of landlord and tenant by sufficient evidence and the defendant is a defaulter. It has also been held that the question of personal necessity on bona fide ground has also been proved by the plaintiff. The court has also held that partial eviction is not sufficient. On the aforesaid findings, the appellate court has reversed the judgment of the trial court and has ordered for eviction of the defendant. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of reversal by the appellate court, the defendants of title suit i.e. tenant has preferred this appeal. This appeal was admitted for hearing on 24.4.2006. 9. The counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court was absolutely within its jurisdiction to hold that there does not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This appeal was admitted for hearing on 24.4.2006. 9. The counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court was absolutely within its jurisdiction to hold that there does not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He submits that when the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiffs should have filed regular suit to establish his title first and then they should have moved application praying for eviction of the premises. He also submits that in simplicitor in suit for eviction when the defendant disputed the title, the eviction decree could not have been passed. He further submits that the trial court had correctly passed the judgment holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove the ownership of plaintiff and also failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He submits that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff as he is the landlord, which they have failed to prove miserably. He further submits that since the relationship of landlord and tenant has not been established, there is no question of default in payment of monthly rent or the premises being required by the plaintiff for his personal necessity. 10. The counsel for the respondent submits that the trial court has completely misdirected itself while passing the judgment. He submits that the first appellate court has considered the points and has held that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and the premises is necessary for the plaintiff. He further submits that being the final court of fact, the first appellate court has held that there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent and the premises is required bona fidely by the plaintiff. He submits that since the final court of fact has answered in favour of the plaintiff, while exercise the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the finding of fact cannot be reversed. 11. While admitting this appeal for hearing, the following question of law have been framed: (i) Whether the lower appellate Court has committed an error in holding that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties without any documentary or oral evidence? 11. While admitting this appeal for hearing, the following question of law have been framed: (i) Whether the lower appellate Court has committed an error in holding that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties without any documentary or oral evidence? (ii) Whether in absence of any cogent evidence regarding creation of tenancy, other findings of the learned court below are vitiated in law? To answer the question, I have to see as to whether there is any documentary or oral evidence which supports creation of tenancy. If there is any documentary or oral evidence, this Court sitting in appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. cannot re-apprise the said evidence, as this Court is not a fact finding Court. The plaintiff has filed documents in support of their claim that they are the landlord and defendant is the tenant. Exhibit 2 is a carbon copy of the house permit. From Ext. 2, it is clear that house No. 41, Area-Bistupur, Road No. 'P' was allotted to the General Secretary, TISCO Mazdoor Union for residence of Shri S.N. Singh on monthly rent of Rs.33.50. The said document was signed by Sri S.N.Singh, which shows that the tenancy was created between the plaintiff and the defendant. This document was exhibited with objection. In support of objection, when I turn to the written statement of the defendant, I find that they had simply mentioned that the House Permit is forged and manufactured. In paragraph 12, the defendant stated that he has not accepted any terms of the said house permit. Thus the said denial is an ornamental denial. The plaintiff by filing and producing Ext.2 has discharged their onus in proof of their submissions i.e. house was allotted to the defendant on monthly rent. When the plaintiff has discharged their onus, it was upon the defendant to counter the same. In this context, I find that only one witness was examined on behalf of the defendant. The said person was one Sudarshan Nayak. He was not the signatory on Ext. 2. Ext. 2 is signed by one Shri S.N. Singh, who accepted the terms and conditions of Ext.2. This D.W.1, Sudarshan Nayak, after going through the signature put on Ext. 2 of S.N. Singh stated that the said signature is forged and fabricated. The said person was one Sudarshan Nayak. He was not the signatory on Ext. 2. Ext. 2 is signed by one Shri S.N. Singh, who accepted the terms and conditions of Ext.2. This D.W.1, Sudarshan Nayak, after going through the signature put on Ext. 2 of S.N. Singh stated that the said signature is forged and fabricated. This witness Sudarshan Nayank is not at all a competent person to say as to whether the signature in Ext. 2 of Shri S,.N. Singh is forged or not. It was the duty of the defendant to produce Sri S.N. Singh as a witness, but the defendant has not produced and examined Sri S.N. Singh before the court as a witness. Sri S.N. Singh was the best person either to deny or to admit the signature and non-production of the said witness by the defendant will definitely draw adverse inference against the defendant. It is also not the case of the defendants that he is unavailable. The plaintiff has discharged his onus, it was the duty of the defendant to produce that person who controverts his signature, which is not done by them. Thus, the appellate court has rightly held that D.W. 1 was not a competent person to depose as to whether the signature of Shri S.N. Singh was forged or not. Ext. 2 is sufficient proof of creation of tenancy between the plaintiff and defendant. Ext. 2 has been taken note of by the first appellate court. Ext. 2 also mentions the monthly rent which is to be paid. The first appellate court has rightly held on basis of documentary evidence that that there exists relationship of land and tenant between the plaintiff an the defendant and monthly rent is Rs.33.50. The court has also taken note of fact the defendant has never taken steps against plaintiff under Section 20 of the B.B.C. Act regarding failure the plaintiff to issue rent receipt. 12. Be it noted here that the plaintiff claimed that the premises was let out for monthly rent of Rs.33.50. The defendant's case was that the plaintiff was never a landlord and therefore the question of payment of rent does not arise. Thus the fact pleaded that the question of payment of rent does not arise as the admission by the defendant clearly means that the defendant has not paid any rent. Plaintiff claimed that Ext. The defendant's case was that the plaintiff was never a landlord and therefore the question of payment of rent does not arise. Thus the fact pleaded that the question of payment of rent does not arise as the admission by the defendant clearly means that the defendant has not paid any rent. Plaintiff claimed that Ext. 2 is a document which establishes the tenancy and the admission of the defendant also clearly suggests that no rent has been paid. This is sufficient ground of default for eviction. Further the first appellate court has held that the premises was bona fidely required by the respondent. It is an absolute question of fact which cannot be set at rest by this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I find that there are evidences to suggest that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff. 13. In view of the findings aforesaid, and in view of Ext. 2 the answer to the question of law formulated which is as follows: Ext. 2 is a document which establishes tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant, thus it cannot be said that there was no documentary or oral evidence in support of creation of tenancy. Ext. 2 has been objected solely on the ground of fabricates signature of Sri S.N. Singh, but Sri S.N. Singh who happens to be a star witness of the defendant was withheld by the defendant thus an adverse inference has to be drawn. This Court finds that this documentary evidence is enough to come to the conclusion that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 14. So far as point no. 2 is concerned, I find that since there is cogent documentary evidence to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant, the findings of the first appellate court is not vitiated. 15. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot set aside the findings arrived at by the first appellate court on facts, which is final. 16. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.