JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Sachi Nandan Das assisted by Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent who has also filed caveat application. 2. The appellant has preferred this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2018 and 08.06.2018 respectively passed by the learned District Judge-II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Eviction Appeal No. 11 of 2007, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2007 and 28.08.2007 respectively passed by the learned Munsif, Chaibasa in Eviction Suit No. 9 of 2004 has been confirmed. 3. Eviction Suit No. 9 of 2004 was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for eviction of appellant/defendant from the suit property under Section 11(1) (c) and (d) of the Bihar Building (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1982) and also for recovery of arrears of rent described in Schedule-B of the plaint. The suit property described in Schedule-A of the plaint as portion of house and premises bearing Municipal Holding No. 2/3, Ward No.2 of Chakradharpur Municipality, P.O. & P.S. Chakradharpur, District-Singhbhum West on the south-western side of the holding and bounded on North by portion of same holding in occupation of Jagdish Sao South portion of same holding in occupation of Nageshwar Oil Mill of Sanjay Sah, West portion of same holding in occupation of Duli Chand Sao and on west road. 4. It was the case of the plaintiff/respondent that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the house and premises situated at Chakradharpur Municipality holding No. 2/3 of Ward No.2, P.O. & P.S. Chakradharpur, District-Singhbhum West. The defendant is in occupation of a portion of aforesaid holding as a tenant under the plaintiff. The tenancy of defendant is month to month according to English Calendar month which commences on the first day of each English Calendar month and ends with last day of the same month. The monthly rent in respect of the suit property is Rs.80/-per month and it becomes payable on the first day of each subsequent month for which rent becomes due. The rent in respect of the suit property was used to be collected by plaintiff or his agent from the defendant at Chakradharpur and or receipt of rent, rent receipt used to be granted then and there itself positively. The rent in respect of the suit property was used to be collected by plaintiff or his agent from the defendant at Chakradharpur and or receipt of rent, rent receipt used to be granted then and there itself positively. It was further case of the plaintiff/respondent that he went to Chakradharpur on 13.02.2004 to attend blood donation camp and on that day, he also went to defendant to collect rent from him for the month of January, 2004. On demand being made, the defendant did not pay the same on lame excuse and thereafter till date he has not paid rent for the suit premises, which remains due from him to plaintiff on and from the month of January, 2004 up to date. A sum of Rs.400/-only remains due from the defendant to the plaintiff and accordingly the defendant has become defaulter and he has rendered himself liable for eviction as per Section 11(1) (d) of the Act, 1982. It was further case of the plaintiff/respondent that the defendant has made an application before the Controller, Chakradharpur alleging falsely that the plaintiff did not grant due receipt to defendant even though rent was paid by him. The plaintiff has further alleged that the aforesaid allegation of defendant is false and the same has been invented by defendant for his own illegal protection. It was further case of the plaintiff/respondent that he and his father are practicing Advocates and they have a large clientele base at Chakradharpur and they have to visit Chakradharpur once a week for their profession. The Sub-Divisional Court of Chakradharpur now at Chaibasa is to be shifted to Chakradharpur and in view of that fact, the plaintiff and his father requires the suit premises to open a chamber and for residence of plaintiff to cater to their clients at Chakradharpur. The plaintiff has no other place or house at Chakradharpur to accommodate himself thus for his residence and chamber, plaintiff requires the entire suit property for his bonafide personal requirement and in good faith and in that view of the matter the defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit property also on the ground of Section 11(1)(c) of the Act, 1982 and therefore the eviction suit was instituted. The cause of action for the suit arose on 01.03.2004 when rent for two months was not paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. The cause of action for the suit arose on 01.03.2004 when rent for two months was not paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. On these grounds, prayer was made in the suit for a decree of khas possession of the suit premises, for recovery of arrears of rent, for cost of the suit and for any other reliefs. 5. On being summoned, the defendant/appellant appeared and contested the suit by filing his written statement, wherein, it was stated that the suit as framed and filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and the plaint is not signed and verified according to law. The defendant's case was that the plaintiff is not owner of the suit property and he has claimed the suit property merely on the basis of getting his name printed in the receipt book with ulterior motive. The owner of the property Mathura Prasad Sao allowed the defendant to occupy a portion of holding @ Rs.15/-per month and the above rate of rent was the contractual rate of rent. Rent has been periodically enhanced to Rs.75/-and thereafter to Rs.80/-per month under threats of eviction and without any order from the Court as per law. It was further case of the defendant/respondent that no claim more than Rs.15/-per month, which is the contractual rate of rent, is enforceable in a Court of law in accordance with provision of the Act, 1982. The above rate is the lawful rate of rent as because any claim in excess of Rs.15/-is barred under Section 4 of the Act, 1982. The suit was filed only with the sole motive to coerce and cause pressure upon the defendant to succumb to illegal demand for increase of rent to Rs.1,100/-per month and further to create a new tenancy. A draft agreement dated 17.04.2004 was made over to defendant by the plaintiff for being signed. The defendant on going through the draft agreement by plaintiff expressed his unwillingness to sign the same which has resulted in the instant suit. It was further case of the defendant/appellant that original owner Mathura Prasad Sao or any of his heirs never notified the defendant about transfer of property to the present plaintiff as claimed by him and accordingly the plaintiff may be a collecting agent and defendant do not admit him as owner of the property. It was further case of the defendant/appellant that original owner Mathura Prasad Sao or any of his heirs never notified the defendant about transfer of property to the present plaintiff as claimed by him and accordingly the plaintiff may be a collecting agent and defendant do not admit him as owner of the property. The defendant has further said that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with correct facts. It was further case of the defendant that he came down to Chaibasa in person on 21.02.2004 and paid a sum of Rs.80/-only to plaintiff being rent for the month of January, 2004. The plaintiff accepted the said amount, but when receipt of the same was demanded by the defendant, the plaintiff said that the receipt would be given after receipt book is available to him. Believing in the words of the plaintiff, the defendant returned back considering the fact that the plaintiff is an Advocate and there has been very cordial relationship between the parties from long time and because of respect for plaintiff and his father and grandfather. On 14.03.2004, the plaintiff visited the premises in occupation of defendant at Chakradharpur and demanded rent for the month of February, 2004 and accordingly a sum of Rs.80/-was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. The receipt was demanded on this occasion also, but the plaintiff came out with plea that he has not brought the receipt book with him and at the same time the plaintiff promised to issue a rent receipt for payment of rent made for both the months i.e. January and February 2004. The defendant this time as well believed in the words of the plaintiff as there was no earthly reason for the defendant to disbelieve or even suspect the plaintiff. The defendant has further said that instead of favouring with rent receipt for the months of January and February 2004, the plaintiff had come out with the suit for eviction on entirely false grounds. On 17.04.2004, the defendant visited the premises at Chaibasa to meet the plaintiff and a sum of Rs.80/-was again paid to the plaintiff being the rent for the month of March 2004. On 17.04.2004, the defendant visited the premises at Chaibasa to meet the plaintiff and a sum of Rs.80/-was again paid to the plaintiff being the rent for the month of March 2004. Rent was accepted by the plaintiff, but when receipt for three months was demanded, the plaintiff said that the rent receipts for all the three months will be granted only when a tenancy agreement is executed by the defendant. The defendant again requested the plaintiff to grant receipt for the rent received earlier, but the plaintiff again insisted for execution of eleven months agreement as suggested and unless the agreement is signed, no receipt would be issued. Thereafter, again receipt was demanded, but the plaintiff did not oblige and, hence, a proceeding in the Court of Controller was filed on 17.05.2004. Thereafter, rent from the month of April 2004 and onwards was being remitted by postal money order to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not accepted the rent. B.B.R.C. Case No. 3 of 2004 was pending in the Court of Rent Controller, Chakradharpur. On the other hand, the plaintiff has filed two fair rent proceedings on other two tenants, who are tenant in same portion of the same building and both of them like the defendant, have also paid the rent to the plaintiff for the above period as well, but receipt has also been refused to them on similar ground. So far no eviction suit has been filed against them. The two tenants have also filed B.B.R.C. Case under Section 20 of the Act, 1982 like the defendant against the plaintiff, but instead of that they are not faced with eviction suit. There are altercation between the parties and the matter was enquired by the Anchal Adhikari, Chakradharpur and report dated 09.01.2005 was submitted by him in the Court, which was received in the Court on 17.01.2005. Again the dispute and issue relating to grant of rent receipt, in spite of payment of rent, was enquired into by same agency and report was submitted on 08.08.2005. The matter was again enquired into by the Magistrate and report was submitted on 05.11.2005. In all the reports, the Enquiring Officer has come to a distinct finding that rent was duly paid by the defendant and in spite of such payment during the entire relevant period in issue, no rent receipt was granted by the plaintiff. The matter was again enquired into by the Magistrate and report was submitted on 05.11.2005. In all the reports, the Enquiring Officer has come to a distinct finding that rent was duly paid by the defendant and in spite of such payment during the entire relevant period in issue, no rent receipt was granted by the plaintiff. The grounds of jointness and enhancement of rent were taken by the defendant. The defendant has further said that under the threats of eviction, the plaintiff compelled the defendant to increase the rate of rent and has increased the same to Rs.75/-per month and thereafter again to Rs.80/-, which was made against the law and the plaintiff is not entitled to any thing more than the contractual rate of rent of Rs.15/-per month and the defendant is entitled to refund of the excess amount of rent collected @ Rs.75/-onwards or in the alternative get the excess rent adjusted. The relationship between landlord and tenant was denied. 6. On the basis of above pleadings, the trial court has entered the lisand framed ten issues to decide the suit. The plaintiff has examined four witnesses and the defendant has examined five witnesses. The documents brought on record by the plaintiff as well as the defendant were marked as exhibits. The trial court has discussed the evidence as well as exhibits. While deciding issue with regard to rent @ Rs.80/-per month, that has been answered in favour of the plaintiff. While deciding issue nos. 1 and 10 for eviction of defendant from the suit property, the trial court came to the finding that the defendant is liable to be evicted from the whole suit property under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act, 1982 and, accordingly, the suit was partly decreed on contest with cost for eviction of defendant from the suit property on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff and the defendant was directed to vacate the suit property and handover the vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff within 90 days. So far as the prayer of the plaintiff for arrears of rent is concerned, that has been rejected by the trial court. Aggrieved with the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff as well as the defendant have filed Eviction Appeal No. 11 of 2007 and Eviction Appeal No. 12 of 2007 respectively. 7. Mr. So far as the prayer of the plaintiff for arrears of rent is concerned, that has been rejected by the trial court. Aggrieved with the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff as well as the defendant have filed Eviction Appeal No. 11 of 2007 and Eviction Appeal No. 12 of 2007 respectively. 7. Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has filed Eviction Appeal No. 12 of 2007. He further submits that the judgment and decree of the trial court has been affirmed by the appellate court with regard to default. He further submits that against the judgment of the appellate court, the respondent has not preferred any Second Appeal. 8. Mr. Sachi Nandan Das, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has filed Eviction Appeal No. 11 of 2007, which has also been affirmed and against that this Second Appeal has been filed. He further submits that the trial court as well as the appellate court have not considered Section 11(c) of the Act, 1982 in its right perspective. He further submits that it has been proved that the appellant/defendant is not a defaulter in paying the amount and that is why the decree was allowed in part. He also submits that in that view of the matter substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal. 9. This Court has perused the judgment under appeal. The appellate court while deciding the appeal has come to the finding that there is no illegality in the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff is landlord of the suit property and the suit property is required by the plaintiff for his bonafide personal need. The appellate court has also come to the finding that in view of Section 11(1) (d) of the Act, 1982, the defendant is not a defaulter. While coming to this conclusion, the appellate court has discussed the evidences as well as exhibits and came to that finding which shows that the appellate court has examined the appeal in view of parameter of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of Har Narain Daga v. Heeralal and Others , reported in (2001) 1 SCC 41 . 10. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “6. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of Har Narain Daga v. Heeralal and Others , reported in (2001) 1 SCC 41 . 10. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “6. We have perused the judgments passed by the trial court, the first appellate court and the High Court. The question of bona fide personal necessity is essentially a question of fact on which a the three courts have concurrently held against the appellant. The case of the respondent that he needs the room on the ground floor for use by himself and his four growing children (sons) has been accepted by the courts below. The courts have also accepted the case that the respondent who is an assistant teacher in a government middle school is often approached by students for giving private coaching, for the purpose of which he needs the room on the ground floor. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below the High Court was justified in not interfering with the finding in the second appeal.” 11. The judgment is well founded. The two fact finding courts have come to the concurrent finding. This Court is not inclined to further consider the evidence as there is no law point, involved in this Second Appeal. The plaintiff and his father are practicing Advocates and they have large clientele base at Chakradharpur and they have to visit Chakradharpur once a week for their profession. The need of plaintiff is just, fair and reasonable. The chamber is basic need for the Lawyers and essential thing cannot be denied. This aspect of the matter has been rightly considered by the appellate court. There is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal. Accordingly, this Second Appeal stands dismissed.