JUDGMENT 1. - This is a tenant's second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge dated 21.2.74 by which he has decreed the suit of the plaintiff landlord against the appellant. 2. The Nohra in dispute was originally taken on rent by the appellant on 1.4.59 at the rate of Rs. 16.75 per mensem. The plaintiff-respondent purchased this Nohra on 24.10.69 from the previous owner for Rs. 10,000/- and after giving a notice to the petitioner, he filed the suit for eviction. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff was running his business of sanitary goods and that there was not enough space with him and he required it bonafide for use of his business. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the appellate Court by its judgments dated 21.12.74 allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. On 3.3.76, when the matter came up for hearing the matter was remitted to the Lower Appellate after framing an issue of comparative hardship in view of the amendment made in Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Act, 1976. The lower appellate Court recorded the evidence and has sent its report to the Court with a finding in favour of the landlord. 3. Mr. Vyas learned counsel for the tenant first attacks the finding of the lower appellate Court that the premises were required bonafide by the landlord. The lower appellate Court has found that the accommodation available with the plaintiff is not enough to keep his goods and that it was necessary for his business to have this plot for his business purposes. The lower appellant Court has rejected the plea of the appellant that the suit has been brought to pressurise the tenant to increase the rent. The lower appellate Court found no evidence in support of this plea of alleged motive of enhancing the rent. The lower appellate Court also noticed that the premises were purchased on 24.10.69 and the notice was sent on 21.8.70 and the suit was soon thereafter brought which would also show that there was no oblique motive in bringing the suit. The lower appellate Court has thus on the consideration of evidence on record come to a finding of fact that the need of the plaintiff is reasonable and bonafide and sitting in second appeal it is not possible to disturb it. 4. The lower appellate Court has thus on the consideration of evidence on record come to a finding of fact that the need of the plaintiff is reasonable and bonafide and sitting in second appeal it is not possible to disturb it. 4. As regards the additional issue of comparative hardship evidence was led before the lower appellate Court. The appellate tried to prove that some plots had been purchased in the name of the wife and son of the landlord and that they were also available for this purpose. The lower appellate Court however has not found this to be correct and has instead held that the same has been let out to R.R. Construction Company. He has relied on the evidence of P.W. Khoda in that regard, the appellant had also sought to prove the hardship that he would suffer if evicted by taking the stand that he was running a 'Pan' and Tea shop in the Nohra in dispute. Apart from his own evidence he also sought to support it by proving the licence Ex. A/7 issued by the Municipal Committee. It has however to be noted that D.W. (4) Jagdish Chandra who proved Ex. A/7 was a licence issued in 1976, and also stated that there was an earlier licence issued in the name of the appellant in 1973, but in cross-examination he had to admit that he had not been the record and counter-part of Ex. A/7 and the lower appellate Court therefore did not rely on the statement and held that the licence taken in 1976 could not prove that the appellant was running any business in the Nohra in dispute for a number of years. 5. It is also relevant to note that the appellant had taken the plea that the shops were run by him whereas the stand of the plaintiff-respondent was that the shops were being run and had been sub-let to Ramesh Chand and Santram. The appellant in his evidence has stated that he was paying Rs. 200/- per mensem as pay to both of them and that the out turn in his business was Rs. 80 to Rs. 90 per day. The appellant in his evidence has stated that he was paying Rs. 200/- per mensem as pay to both of them and that the out turn in his business was Rs. 80 to Rs. 90 per day. However, he produced no memos or books showing the entries of the purchases made for the business nor was he able to produce any receipt purporting to have been given by those persons in taken of having received this amount as pay. On assessing this evidence the lower appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the Nohra in dispute was not being utilised by him personally and in fact the same had been sub-let to other persons, and thus the appellant did not need it for his own personal use. It was also in the evidence of the appellant that he has closed his business of Mica since 1966 and that most of the plot was laying vacant. As against this it is in the evidence that the plaintiff has large business and has had to rent out godowns for the purposes of storing his goods. If on weighing his evidence of both sides the lower appellate Court has come to a conclusion that it will cause greater hardship to the plaintiff if a decree is not passed, his finding against the appellant cannot be said to be in any way illegal or perverse. 6. The result is that I find on merit in the appeal and would dismiss it would however given the appellant three months' time to vacate the premises. Mr. Vyas at this stage requests for leave to appeal. Considering that the matter is concluded by a finding of fact, I see no reason to grant leave. Leave is therefore refused.Appeal dismissed. *******