S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.413/02 Date:04/08/2008 HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ASHOK PARIHAR Mr. Sailesh Prakash Sharma, for appellant. Mr. R.A. Katta, for respondent. BY THE COURT: Suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff- respondent on the ground of default and personal bonafide necessity was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 9.5.2001. However, the above judgment and decree passed by the trial court has been reversed and set aside by the lower appellate court vide judgment dated 18.7.2002. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record. Though benefit of first default has been given by both the courts below, however, the lower appellate court on the basis of evidence on record came to a finding that the bonafide and personal necessity is of the landlord. His necessity cannot be denied only because there is enough ancestral property which have not been partitioned so far. The lower appellate court also decided the issue of comparative hardship in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Since after due consideration proper discretion has already been used by the lower appellate court, in the facts and circumstances, no further interference is called for by this court, moreso, when no substantial question of law arises. However, in the interest of justice, the defendant- appellant may now vacate the suit premises on or before 1.11.2008. The defendant-appellant shall continue to pay the monthly rent till the date of vacation of the suit premises. An undertaking in this regard be submitted by the defendant-appellant before the trial court within 15 days. In case of violation of any of the conditions of undertaking, the plaintiff-respondent shall be free to execute the decree passed by the lower appellate court in accordance with law. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Ashok Parihar) J.