1 SBCivil Second Appeal No.251/2009 Chanduji v. LRs of Late Shri Kalu Ram Date of Order :: 2nd August, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. RK Thanvi, for the appellant. Mr. Om Mehta, for the respondents. .... This second appeal is preferred to challenge the judgment and decree dated 27.7.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.5.2007 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.5, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No.257/1993 (648/1982). Learned Additional Civil Judge decreed the suit preferred by the plaintiff respondent for eviction of the defendant appellant from the rented premises and for recovery of arrears of rent. The original court after considering the entire evidence available on record gave a finding of fact that the plaintiff is having a bonafide need of the premises and as such passed the decree for eviction. While doing so, the court also held that availability of some alternative premises cannot be a reason to deprive landlord to satisfy his bonafide need from the property of his choice. Learned 2 appellate court examined the matter from all the aspects and reached at the conclusion that not only the necessity of the landlord is bonafide but as a matter of fact the tenant is having his own house to meet his requirements. While challenging the judgments and decrees aforesaid the contention of counsel for the appellant is that bonafide necessity of the plaintiff landlord could have been satisfied on availability of three rooms vacated by an another tenant Swarooparam, but that aspect has not been adequately considered by the courts below. As per counsel for the appellant the appellant is having only one room in his possession and as such on availability of three rooms the bonafide need of the landlord stands extinguished. Considered the argument advanced and also examined the record. The courts below after examining the entire evidence available on record gave a finding of fact regarding bonafide necessity of the plaintiff. The challenge to the finding aforesaid is given on the count that three rooms are available with the landlord which are vacated by Swarooparam, thus, the bonafide necessity of the premises can be satisfied by utilising those rooms. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The landlord is having ample right 3 to choose the best premises to satisfy his need as per his will. The tenant is having no say in this regard. As a matter of fact the concurrent findings of fact given by the courts below in the instant matter does not require any interference of this Court as no substantial question of law is involved. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below stand affirmed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.