JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment of affirmance dated 03.05.2019 passed by learned District Judge-XIV, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No. 160 of 2018 whereby and where under the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-I, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 43 of 2009 dated 11.09.2018. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff/appellant filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 43 of 2009 in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division-I, Dhanbad. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises. He inducted the defendant as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- payable in the first week of each succeeding English Calendar month. The defendant paid rent up to January, 2004 but thereafter failed to pay the rent. The plaintiff sent advocate’s notice but the defendant claimed that he has remitted the rent to the plaintiff through money order. 4. The defendant in his written statement challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and claimed that the defendant has paid up-to-date rent to the plaintiff but the plaintiff did not issue rent receipt to the defendant for non-availability of printed rent receipts. On 07.04.2004, the defendant approached the plaintiff to receive the rent but the plaintiff did not receive the same. On 30.05.2004, the defendant went to pay the rent but the plaintiff demanded enhanced monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The defendant remitted the monthly rent by money orders. The plaintiff refused to accept the same. The defendant pleaded that he was inducted as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.60/- but the plaintiff gradually enhanced the same from time-to-time and ultimately compelled the defendant to pay the monthly rent of Rs.300/-. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following six issues: (I) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (II) Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action for the suit? (III) Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent of suit premises? 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following six issues: (I) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (II) Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action for the suit? (III) Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent of suit premises? (IV) Whether the plaintiff has bona-fide need for their own purposes of the suit property? (V) Whether the partial eviction of defendant from the suit premises can satisfy the need of plaintiff? (VI) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree as claimed? 6. In support of his case, the plaintiff altogether examined two witnesses and proved the documents which have been marked as Ext. 1 and Ext. 2. From the side of the defendants, five witnesses have been examined besides proving the documents which have been marked Ext. A series to Ext. E. 7. The learned trial court first took up issue No. (III) and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the plea of the plaintiff that the defendant was defaulter in payment of rent from February, 2004 cannot be accepted and decided the issue against the plaintiff. 8. The learned trial court next took up issue Nos. (IV) and (V) together and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove his bona-fide requirement (Personal necessity) of the suit premises and decided the said issued against the plaintiff. 9. The learned trial court thereafter took up the issue No. (II) and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not have any cause of action to institute the suit. 10. In answer to the issue No. (I) next taken up by the learned trial court, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable in its present form. 11. Lastly, the learned trial court took up the issue No. (VI) and held that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief/reliefs as claimed for and dismissed the suit. 12. 11. Lastly, the learned trial court took up the issue No. (VI) and held that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief/reliefs as claimed for and dismissed the suit. 12. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court being Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 43 of 2009, the appellant/plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No. 160 of 2018 in the court Principal District Judge, Dhanbad which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment as already indicated above. 13. The learned first appellate settled the following two points for determination: “Point No. 1: Whether the defendant/respondent is defaulter for payment of rent of the suit property since February, 2004 and thereafter? Point No. 2: Is the Plaintiff/Appellant entitled for decree of eviction against the defendant for the suit property?” 14. The learned first appellate court took up the points for determination Nos. 1 and 2 together and after making independent appreciation of the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the defendant is defaulter of payment of rent of two months i.e. February, 2004 onwards and decided both the points for determination against the plaintiff/appellant and dismissed the appeal. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the courts below have committed perversity by not properly appreciating the evidence in the record and mechanically dismissed the suit and appeal respectively and failed to appreciate the fact that the defendant has failed to pay the rent from February, 2004 onwards. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree of both the courts below be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed after formulating appropriate substantial question of law. 16. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree of both the courts below be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed after formulating appropriate substantial question of law. 16. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that perversity, so far as it relates to interfering with the findings of fact by exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 and 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding the relevant materials or by taking into consideration the irrelevant material or if the finding, so outrageously defies the logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eyes of law or if the finding of the court is based on no evidence or evidence, which is thoroughly unreliable or the evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person, would have arrived at those findings then the findings may be said to be perverse, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Others, (2010) 13 SCC 216 Para-28 of which reads as under: “28. If a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eye of the law. If the findings of the Court are based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable or evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings, then the findings may be said to be perverse. Further if the findings are either ipse dixit of the Court or based on conjecture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and thus, stands vitiated. Further if the findings are either ipse dixit of the Court or based on conjecture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and thus, stands vitiated. [Vide Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan, (2010) 11 SCC 483 : AIR 2010 SC 2685 ].” The same has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharatha Matha and Another vs. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Others, (2010) 11 SCC 483 and which has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.N. Nagarajappa and Others vs. H. Narasimha Reddy, 2021 SCC Online SC 694. 17. Now, coming to the facts of the case, this Court finds that both the courts below have made threadbare discussion of the evidence in the record and after appreciation of the evidence in the record as per law, without considering any evidence which is inadmissible or ignoring the evidence which was admissible, has arrived at reasonable conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent and before the appellate court, the plaintiff did not agitate the findings of the trial court regarding personal necessity against the plaintiff. 18. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal. 19. Accordingly, this appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs. 20. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be sent to the courts concerned forthwith.