1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ::: JUDGMENT Tola Ram and another. vs. Jitendra Singh and others. S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.380/2007 UNDER SECTION 100 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 2.8.2007 PASSED BY SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR MATHUR, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NO.2, BIKANER IN CIVIL APPEAL DECREE NO.47/2006. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 12.12.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.A Bhansali, for the appellants. Mr.M Bhandari ) for the respondents. Mr.JK Bhaiya ) - - - - - BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellants/defendants are aggrieved against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two 2 courts below whereby the two courts below held that the suit property is required for the business of the plaintiff's son Vineet Singh and the need of the plaintiff is, therefore, bonafide need. The Courts below also held that the original tenants Tola Ram and Bajrang Lal have already shifted from Bikaner and son of Tola Ram – Punam Chand alone is in occupation of the shop in question and doing business. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in fact, the suit was filed for the need of Vineet Singh alleging that he wanted to start new business and the defendant/appellant took a specific plea that Vineet Singh is engaged in the business in the firm Excellent Enterprises. Vineet Singh in his statement denied any connection with the said firm but Vineet Singh's brother stated on oath that Vineet Singh in fact started the said firm. In view of the above fact, statement of Vineet Singh could not have been relied upon. It is also submitted that there was no case of subletting in view of the fact that the family member of tenant and in fact, son of one of the defendant/ tenant is carrying on business in the suit premises since last 25 years. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the reasons given by the 3 two courts below in the impugned judgments as well as the record. Two courts below held that the appellants produced only a visiting card containing the name of Vineet Singh with the firm's name Excellent Enterprises but has not produced any other evidence which could have been produced to prove that Vineet Singh in fact started business in the name of Excellent Enterprises and when he started. Be it as it may be, two courts below, after considering evidence, held that the plaintiffs' need was bonafide for running the business of computer printing etc. and even if he established any firm like Excellent Enterprises, then also, there is no material available on record that that work continued and is continuing and the need of the plaintiff's son is tinted. In view of the above reasons and in view of the fact that the original tenants have left the suit property and in fact, the city itself, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgments while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Consequently, this second appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4 At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants may be given some time to vacate the suit premises. I considered this prayer of learned counsel for the appellants and looking to the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellants be granted time upto 31.12.2008 to vacate the suit premises. Therefore, it is ordered that in case, the appellants furnish a written undertaking before the trial court within a period of two months from today that they shall hand over the vacant possession to the landlord by or before 31.12.2008 and shall not part with the possession or sublet the suit premises during this period and shall pay all the arrears of rent and decreetal amount, if due, and shall also pay the rent upto 31.12.2008 in advance within a period of two months from today before the trial court or directly to the landlord, the decree under challenge shall not be executed till 1.1.2009. In case of non-compliance of the order or default in payment of amount mentioned above, the decree shall become executable forthwith. 5 With the aforesaid concession, this appeal is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya