S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.220/07 Date:08/08/2008 HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ASHOK PARIHAR Mr. R.K. Agrawal, for appellant. Mr. B.B. Mathur, for respondent. BY THE COURT: Suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff- respondent was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 28.5.2002 on the ground of personal bonafide necessity. The above judgment and decree passed by the trial court has further been affirmed by the lower appellate court vide judgment dated 18.1.2007. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record. On the basis of concurrent findings of fact, the issues in regard to bonafide necessity, comparative hardship as also partial eviction have been decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, however, submitted that the plaintiff- respondent after retirement is receiving pensionary benefits and at the age of more than 70 years it will be difficult for him to enter the profession of Chartered Accountant in the premises in question. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. Since after due consideration proper discretion has already been used by both the courts below, 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 1.12.2008. 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 courts below in accordance with law. With the above liberty and directions, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Ashok Parihar) J.