1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ::: JUDGMENT Bhura Lal through his LRs. vs. Dharam Narain through his LRs. S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.128/2004 UNDER SECTION 100 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.8.2003 PASSED BY SUSHRI PRABHA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NO.1, BHILWARA IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3/2001. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 12.1.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Rakesh Arora, for the appellants. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for the respondents. - - - - - BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. Two courts below dismissed the plaintiff/ appellant' suit for eviction of the respondent/ defendant – tenant. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiff submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the 2 defendant tenant died and her deserted daughter was treated as tenant in the suit shop by the two courts below. According to learned counsel for the appellants, she could not have been treated to be tenant because of the reason that the original tenant – deceased Dharam Narain was doing the work of nursing in the suit shop and that technical work could not have been done by the tenant's daughter. It is also submitted that the appellant proved his personal bonafide necessity. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the reasons given by the two courts below. Two courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to prove his personal bonafide necessity of the property in dispute and two courts below concurrently held that the defendant's daughter is family member of the defendant as she was deserted by her husband and she started doing the same work which was being done by the appellant tenant. In view of the above finding of fact, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal, having no merit, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya