JUDGMENT 1. - This is a Second appeal by the defendant-tenant against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge Cittorgarh dated May 25, 1977 affirming the decree for eviction passed against the appellant by the Munsiff Partabagh. 2. There is no dispute that the relationship between the parties that of landlord and tenant. The respondent landlord filed a suit for eviction from the suit premises on the ground that he required the premises reasonably and bonafide for the use and occupation of his son Rishabh Kumar. The defendant-appellant resisted the suit and denied that the plaintiff required that suit premises reasonably and bonafide for the use and occupation of his son Rishab Kumar. It was also alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for eviction as the tenant would suffer greater hardship by passing the decree than refusing to pass it. 3. The trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed the following two important issues:-1. Whether the suit premises are required by the plaintiff reasonably and bonafide ?1(a) Whether greater hardship shall be caused to the plaintiff by refusing to pass the decree for eviction in his favour ?Both the Courts below decided both these issues in favour of the plaintiff-landlord It was held by both the Courts below that the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for use and occupation of his son Rishabh Kumar. It was further held that plaintiff-landlord would suffer greater hardship than that defendant-tenant, if decree for eviction is not passed in his favour. 4. Dissatisfied with the appellate decree the defendant-tenant has preferred this second appeal. The appeal was admitted by this Court on July 15, 1977 on the ground that there exists substantial question of law in this appeal as to whether greater hardship would be caused to the landlord by refusing to pass the decree in favour of the landlord. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent vehemently contends that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. He further contends that the question of comparatively hardship was thoroughly gone into by the two Courts below and both of them concurrently held in favour on the plaintiff on the said question. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the two Courts below committed gross error in ignoring the statement of P.W. 6. He further contends that the question of comparatively hardship was thoroughly gone into by the two Courts below and both of them concurrently held in favour on the plaintiff on the said question. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the two Courts below committed gross error in ignoring the statement of P.W. 6. Motilal who has deposed that the plaintiff owns more than one house. He has further contended that if the plaintiff owns more than one house, then it cannot be said that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff-landlord by refusing to pass the decree for eviction. 6. I find no substance in the above contention put forward by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant. I have gone through the statement of PW-6 Motilal on which stress has been laid runs as under:- It is apparent that the deposition of the witness that the plaintiff Ratanlal owns two houses in Loharaon-Ki-Gali is not based on personal knowledge as the witness himself admits that did not visit Lahoron-Ki-Gali. This sort of statement cannot be believed to arrive at the conclusion that the plaintiff Ratanlal owns two more houses than the dispute one. The Statement of this witness besides being hearsay also appears to be incorrect inasmuch as it has never been the case of the defendant that the plaintiff owns any house other than the dispute house. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the Courts below committed any error in not placing reliance on the Statement of PW-6 Motilal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has next contended that the financial position of the plaintiff-landlord is much more sound than that of the defendant. In my opinion, in judging the question of comparative hardship for the purpose of passing a decree for eviction, it is wholly irrelevant to took into the comparative financial position of the landlord and tenant. In my opinion, there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 8. The appeal fails and is dismissed with Courts.Petition dismissed. *******