In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan Bench At Jaipur. SB Civil Second Appeal No.406/08 Moh. Mistri v. Rajkumar Bohra Date of order March 25, 2009 Hon'ble Justice JR Goyal Mr. Vipul Jain for Mr. Sudesh Bansal, for appellant Mr. MM Ranjan, for respondent This second appeal under S.100 CPC has been preferred by the appellant- defendant against the judgment and decree dated 11.8.08 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil First Appeal No.42/07, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and cross-objection filed by the respondent has been partly allowed and judgment and decree dated 9.5.07 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), West Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.277/97, has been maintained. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent Rajkumar Bohra filed a suit for eviction, rent and mesne profits in relation the suit shop situated at Station Road, Opposite Police Lines, Jaipur. The suit was filed mainly on the grounds of default, sub-letting, change of use and personal necessity. Defendant also filed written-statement admitting therein that he took the shop from Satish Chandra, but denied about having any knowledge in regard to sale of the shop to plaintiff. He stated that rent has been paid up to 1997 to the Munim of Satish Chandra and denied the grounds of default, sub-letting, change of use and personal necessity. Issues were framed, the trial court struck off defence of the defendant on the application of plaintiff filed under S.13(5) of the Rent Control Act, on 22.2.06. After recording evidence, the trial court decreed the suit on the grounds of default and personal necessity, against which the defendant-appellant filed First Appeal, which was dismissed and cross-objection filed by the plaintiff-respondent in regard to the finding of trial court on the issue of sub-letting, was reversed. Hence this appeal. Heard learned counsel for the parties. During the course of arguments, it as been admitted by the learned counsel for appellant that the suit shop has been got vacated in execution of the impugned decree. There are concurrent findings of fact. There appears to be no substantial question of law involved in this matter. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed in limine. (JR Goyal) J. db