CSA 212/09 Surendra Narayan Sharma Vs. Hari Narayan Tank (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur J U D G M E N T In S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.212/2009 Surendra Narayan Sharma Vs. Hari Narayan Tank Date of Judgment :: 26th August, 2009 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. Jitendra Mitruka, for appellant. ....... By the Court :- This is plaintiff's' second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the concurrent judgment and decree dated 29/1/2009 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Regular Appeal No.17/2006 {142/2002} whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree dated 10/1/2003 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) (West), Jaipur City, Jaipur by which suit of the appellant-plaintiff for arrears of rent and eviction has been dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the point of admission and perused the judgments of the courts below. 3. The controversy involved in the present matter in nut shell is that the plaintiff sought eviction of the defendant- CSA 212/09 Surendra Narayan Sharma Vs. Hari Narayan Tank (2) tenant from the suit shop on the ground of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide requirement, nuisance, material addition and alteration, comparative hardship and partial eviction whereas according to the defendant no ground for eviction exist. 4. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed issues and after recording the evidence and hearing the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and the appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the trial court was also dismissed. Hence, this second appeal, by the appellant-plaintiff. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments of the courts below. 6. It was inter alia contended that appellant- plaintiff is a retired employee and he needs the suit shop to start printing business along with his second son Rakesh but the trial court without properly appreciating the evidence dismissed the suit. It was then submitted that it was incumbent upon the courts below to decide the issue of comparative hardship after considering the material evidence. In support of the contentions, reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered in the case of Ganga Devi Vs. District Judge, Nainital and others, reported in (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 770, wherein it was held that comparative hardship is essentially a question of fact to be determined in accordance CSA 212/09 Surendra Narayan Sharma Vs. Hari Narayan Tank (3) with the relevant provisions. 7. I have considered the above submissions. Both the courts below have arrived at concurrent finding of the fact that appellant-plaintiff's second son with whom he also required the disputed premises for establishing a printing press is already having printing press in some another premises and also arrived at the conclusion that plaintiff does not have personal and bonafide necessity of the suit shop, in which I do not find any impropriety or illegality. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. 8. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. (J.R. Goyal),J. VS Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. D56