JUDGMENT 1. - Heard, Learned counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiff-appellant (land lord) brought this suit against the defendant-respondent (tenant) for ejectment on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of the house in suit for himself and his family. 3. Issue No. 1 was framed by the trial Court covering this ground of ejectment. On April 16, 1977, an additional issue relating to the comparative hardship was framed by the District Judge in view of the amended Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. The learned Munsif, Jodhpur decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff vide his judgment dated March 21, 1975. The learned Additional Civil Judge, on appeal, reversed the finding on issue No. 1 after considering the evidence of the parties. Issue relating to comparative hardship was also decided by the learned Additional Civil Judge against the plaintiff. He came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has four houses in his possession, in which he and his family can live comfortably. Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the finding of the learned Additional Civil Judge on both the points-reasonable and bonafide necessity and comparative hardship. Learned Additional Civil Judge, after examining the pleadings of the parties and the relevant evidence bearing on these two question, decided both the points against the plaintiff. The finding on the questions of reasonable and bonafide necessity and the comparative hardship are of fact. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant could not satisfy me that these findings have been arrived at by ignoring material evidence or that no reasonable man can reach. While arriving at this findings, no mistake of law was committed by the learned Additional Civil Judge. 4. In these circumstances, the decision of the learned Additional Civil Judge on the question of reasonable and band fide necessity and comparative hardship do not call for any interference by this Court in second appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the learned Additional Civil was not right in awarding Rs. 200/- as compensatory costs under Section 35A C.P.C. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent rightly concedes that the award of compensatory costs to the defendant under Section 35A is not justified. Learned Additional Civil Judge has nowhere found that the claim for ejectment, put forward by the plaintiff was false or vexatious. 200/- as compensatory costs under Section 35A C.P.C. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent rightly concedes that the award of compensatory costs to the defendant under Section 35A is not justified. Learned Additional Civil Judge has nowhere found that the claim for ejectment, put forward by the plaintiff was false or vexatious. In view of the concessions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the direction for payment of Rs. 200/- as compensatory costs under Section 35A C.P.C. by the plaintiff to the defendant, is set aside. 6. Issue No. 3, farmed by the trial Court relating to the compensatory costs, is therefore decided against the defendant-respondent. 7. No other point was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal. 8. This appeal is, therefore, partly allowed without any order as to costs. Judgment decree of the lower appellate Court are modified to this extent that plaintiff-appellant is not liable to pay Rs. 200/- as compensatory costs to the defendant-respondent. *******