SBC2ND APPEAL NO.350/2007– SANTOSH KUMAR V/S SMT. RAM PYARI. : ORDER DATED 8.9.2008 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.350/2007 Santosh Kumar alias Babusa versus Smt. Rampyari and another. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Suresh Shrimali, for the appellant. Mr.R.K.Thanvi, for the respondents. DATE OF ORDER : 8th September, 2008. O R D E R 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendant – tenant against the concurrent findings of two courts below granting eviction decree in favour of the respondent – plaintiff on the ground of personal bonafide necessity. SBC2ND APPEAL NO.350/2007– SANTOSH KUMAR V/S SMT. RAM PYARI. : ORDER DATED 8.9.2008 2/3 3. The learned counsel for the appellant – defendant submitted that from the plaint itself, it would appear that the grandson for whose bonafide necessity the plaintiff had filed the eviction suit, namely, Praveen Solanki, already had two shops in his share vide para 2 of the plaint showing neighbourhood of the suit shops and therefore, the Courts below have erred in holding that the plaintiff still needed the shop in question for bonafide need of the said person Praveen Solanki. 4. On the side opposite, the learned counsel for the plaintiff - landlord Mr. R.K.Thanvi submitted that mere showing of neighbourhood does not mean that the said shop was available for bonafide need of grandson Praveen Solanki and as a matter of fact both the courts below have found that said shops were not available for satisfaction of bonafide need of the said person Sh. Praveen Solanki and against the said findings of fact about the bonafide necessity, no substantial question of law arises. He relied upon decision of this Court in the case of Sushila Devi V/s Shri Mahavir Kumar Sanghi reported in 2008(1) Civil Times (Raj.) 427 and Abdul Vaheed V/s Amar Chand and ors. reported in 2003(1) Current Civil Cases (Raj.) 348 in which this Court has held that concurrent SBC2ND APPEAL NO.350/2007– SANTOSH KUMAR V/S SMT. RAM PYARI. : ORDER DATED 8.9.2008 3/3 findings of fact about the personal necessity cannot be interfered with in the second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. 5. Having heard the learned counsel and upon perusal of the impugned judgment of both the courts below, this Court finds no substantial question of law to be arising in the present appeal and the courts below on relevant evidence have found that the suit shop in question was required for personal bonafide necessity of grandson of the landlord. The Courts below have not misread any evidence nor findings can be said to be perverse in any manner. Therefore, this appeal is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.46 Ss/-