SBC2ND APPEAL NO.195/2007– Lrs OF MAHI BUX V/S SMT. MOHINI DEVI . : ORDER DATED 8.9.2008 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.195/2007 LRs. of Mahi Bux versus Smt. Mohini Devi PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.V.K.Bhadu } Mr.Manish Dadhich }, for the appellant. Mr.J.Gehlot, for the respondent. 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 of the respondent – plaintiff – Smt.Mohini Devi. SBC2ND APPEAL NO.195/2007– Lrs OF MAHI BUX V/S SMT. MOHINI DEVI . : ORDER DATED 8.9.2008 2/3 3. The learned counsel for the appellant – defendant submits that the plaintiff herself did not appear in the witness- box, but her power of attorney Pyare Lal her husband only appeared. Secondly he submitted that even the suit has been verified by the said power of attorney Mr. Pyare Lal. He further submitted that two of the sons of the plaintiff resided in USA and therefore, there was no bonafide necessity of the plaintiff – respondent and therefore, the decree has been wrongly granted. 4. Mr. Gehlot strongly opposed these submissions and submitted that the concurrent findings of facts about the bonafide necessity of the plaintiff – respondent could not be challenged in the second appeal as no substantial question of law arises in the matter and the findings of Courts below cannot be said to be perverse or wrong in any manner. He submitted that the power of attorney given by the plaintiff – wife in faovur of her husband clearly authorized him to file the present suit and deposed on her behalf about the personal bonafide necessity and looking to the close relations between the parties, the same could not be disputed. SBC2ND APPEAL NO.195/2007– Lrs OF MAHI BUX V/S SMT. MOHINI DEVI . : ORDER DATED 8.9.2008 3/3 5. Having heard the learned counsel and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds no substantial question of law to be arising in the matter so as to require any interference under Section 100 C.P.C. No substantial question of law arises in the present arises in the present matter and the findings of facts of personal bonafide necessity of the respondent – plaintiff cannot be interfered with in the present appeal. The said findings cannot be said to be perverse or resulting out of any misreading of evidence. Thus, the present 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.45 Ss/-