CSA 447/09 Bhagwanaram Vs. Murarilal (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.447/2009 Bhagwanaram Vs. Murarilal Date of Judgment :: 26th August, 2009 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. Nawal Singh on behalf of Mr. Pratap Singh Sirohi, 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 12/12/2008 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jhunjhunu in Civil Regular Appeal No.16/2008 {110/2007} whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree dated 8/8/2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chirawa 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 plaintiff sought eviction of the defendant- tenant from the suit shop mainly on the ground of reasonable CSA 447/09 Bhagwanaram Vs. Murarilal (2) and bonafide necessity of the suit shop for his two sons, comparative hardship and default in payment of rent 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 was also dismissed by the first appellate court. 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 has proved that he has a bonafide need of the disputed shop but the courts below have not considered the evidence in proper perspective. 7. I have considered the above submission in the light of the impugned judgments of the court below. The suit of the plaintiff based upon personal necessity was not found proved by the trial court and appeal filed against the said judgment and decree by the appellant-plaintiff was also dismissed. There is concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has not succeeded in proving his personal necessity of the disputed shop, in which I do not find any impropriety or illegality. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be CSA 447/09 Bhagwanaram Vs. Murarilal (3) dismissed at the admission stage. 8. Consequently, this appeal along with stay application is dismissed at the admission stage. (J.R. Goyal),J. VS Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. D64