JUDGMENT : This civil second appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful appellant/defendant/tenant (for brevity, “defendant”) against the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sawaimadhopur (for brevity, “the learned Appellate Court”) whereby, the Appeal No.126/2012 (1291/2014) preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sawaimadhopur (for brevity, “the learned trial Court”) decreeing the Suit No.09/1996 (17/92) filed by the respondents/plaintiffs (for brevity, “plaintiffs”) for eviction and arrears of rent, has been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the defendant with the averments that the suit shop situated in Sawaimadhopur was let out by them to the defendant on 15.10.1988 @ Rs. 350/- per month. Alleging that the defendant has committed default in payment of rent for a period of six months, his eviction was sought along with arrears of rent. 3. The defendant in his written statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, submitted that he has taken the suit shop on rent from Shri Hari Ballabh @ Hari Prasad, who has executed an agreement to sell dated 23.12.1990 of the subject shop in his favour for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- receiving an advance amount of Rs. 38,000/- in cash. It was averred that thereafter, he has not paid rent to Shri Hari Ballabh @ Hari Prasad. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed 6 Issues. After recording of the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment dated 19.04.2012 which has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 20.04.2019. 5. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as he has taken the subject premises on rent from Shri Hari Ballabh @ Hari Prasad, who has subsequently executed an agreement to sell dated 23.12.1990 in his favour and thereafter, he occupied the same as its owner. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2019 be quashed and set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. 6. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2019 be quashed and set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that since, there is a concurrent finding of fact with regard to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the civil second appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. From the findings of the learned Appellate Court as also the learned trial Court on Issue No.5 pertaining to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it is reflected that the defendant as DW-1 has admitted execution of the rent deed (Ex.- 1) dated 15.10.1988 in favour of the plaintiffs and his defence that he was made to sign this deed by Shri Hari Ballabh @ Hari Prasad on the pretext that he was mortgaging the subject shop to third person has rightly not been countenanced by the learned Courts on the premise that no oral evidence in contradiction to the written deed is admissible. It has also come in evidence that the defendant has claimed himself to be tenant in the subject premises since the year, 1985; but, he failed to explain as to why he executed a fresh rent deed dated 15.10.1988 for the same shop. Contention of the defendant that at the time he signed the rent deed dated 15.10.1988, it was blank, has not been accepted by the learned Courts on the premise that no such averment was made in the written statement. He has further admitted that the suit filed by him against Shri Hari Ballabh @ Hari Prasad for specific performance of the agreement dated 23.12.1990, was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Sawaimadhopur. The defendant has further admitted during his cross-examination that he did not produce any evidence to show that after execution of the rent deed dated 15.10.1988, he ever paid rent to Shri Hari Ballabh @ Hari Prasad. In view of the categorical admission by the defendant as to execution of the rent deed dated 15.10.1988 by him which, indisputably, is in favour of the plaintiffs, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Courts did not err in returning the findings on Issue No.5 in favour the plaintiffs. 9. In view of the categorical admission by the defendant as to execution of the rent deed dated 15.10.1988 by him which, indisputably, is in favour of the plaintiffs, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Courts did not err in returning the findings on Issue No.5 in favour the plaintiffs. 9. Thus, there is a concurrent finding of fact as to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, which has not been shown to be perverse. 10. Accordingly, this civil second appeal is dismissed being devoid of any substantial question of law.