IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.827/2007 Sugal Lal. Vs. Sugani Devi. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH 07.01.2008. Shri Shiv Charan Gupta, for the appellant. Shri R.K. Agarwal, for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Two courts below have given concurrent findings with regard to personal bona fide necessity to the payment of the plaintiff landlord. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case it was incumbent upon the plaintiff landlord to have given a notice for termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. So far as the above contention is concerned, from the judgment of the learned trial court it does not appear that any such issue was raised before it. The said plea thus in my view cannot be allowed to be raised as parties have not gone to trial on the same. So far as the question of personal bona fide necessity is concerned the learned counsel for the appellant contended that Manoj for whom necessity has been pleaded is not a member of the family and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to file the suit for eviction on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of Manoj. A perusal of the certified copy of the judgment of the lower appellate court at page 10 and 11 of the same goes to show that the lower appellate court has held after considering the evidence in that behalf more particularly the adoption deed Ex.A-2 and satement of plaintiff's witness PW2 Babu lal who was not cross examined in that behalf regarding the fact that Manoj was not a member of the family or on the question of adoption. Similarly, the defendant himself has not taken a stand regarding the fact that Babul Lal was not adopted by Smt. Sugni Devi, on the contrary the defendant appellant has admitted that Manoj is son of Babu Lal and Babu Lal is son of Bhagirath and this he is stating only because Ram Avtar had told him. That shows that the defendant has no personal knowledge about this fact. The learned courts below have taken into consideration the fact that Babul Lalhas been living as a member of family of Smt. Sugani Devi and on behalf of Sugani Devi he had been receiving the rent. Thus taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration the court below has held that the adoption by way of Ex.A2 the adoption deed which is a registered document is proved and there is no need to doubt the same. Hence there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any substance in the second appeal. No substantial question of law arises in the same. Consequently, the same is dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS