SBCSA NO.18/2008 – PREM SUKH V/S SMT. REHMAT BAI AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD.23.7.2008. 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.18/2008 Prem Sukh versus Smt. Rehmat Bai PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Himanshu Maheshwari, for the appellant. Mr.Usman Gani, for the respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT : 23rd July, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsels. 2. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent findings of two courts below in eviction matter by the defendant. Learned counsel for the appellant – defendant submitted that eviction suit for eviction was filed on the ground of bonafide necessity and non-user of the shop in question. Both the Courts below have found that the shop which was used as barber shop was not used by the defendant for about 10 years SBCSA NO.18/2008 – PREM SUKH V/S SMT. REHMAT BAI AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD.23.7.2008. 2/3 and on account of death of tenant Balu Ram, the said shop had remained closed as his son, present defendant – appellant Prem Sukh was working as a Teacher in the Government School. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have found that the eviction decree deserves to be passed in favour of the plaintiff, on account of both the grounds; personal bonafide necessity and non-user of the shop. 3. The learned counsel for the defendant has further averred that there was no personal bonafide necessity as the plaintiff had constructed another shop and had given on rent to some other tenant at different place and the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated this fact. He also submitted that during the pendency of this appeal, the plaintiff – decree holder has obtained possession of the shop in question in execution proceedings which was also not proper, according to him. 4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff - respondent opposes these submissions and submits that against the concurrent findings of two courts below, no substantial SBCSA NO.18/2008 – PREM SUKH V/S SMT. REHMAT BAI AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD.23.7.2008. 3/3 questions of law arise in the present second appeal. As far as alternative shop is concerned, he submits that the same was constructed in a different area and for personal necessity of the plaintiff, who wanted to set up a cosmetic shop, the present market area in question was found to be most suitable and therefore, such alternative accommodation constructed by the plaintiff is of no consequence. As far as non-user is concerned, he has submitted that in view of the present appellant – defendant, son of the original tenant being in Government job, the shop in question had remained vacant for approximately 10 years and proper evidence was led by the plaintiff to prove the same. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar and upon perusal of the impugned judgments, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.26 Ss/-