JUDGMENT 1. - This is a defendant-tenants second appeal under section 100 of the Cede of Civil Procedure directed against the judgment dated September 8, 1980, of the Civil Judge, Udaipur. 2. A few facts leading to filing of this appeal are as follows:- 3. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-appellant. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the plaintiff requires the house in question for his own need. The suit was contested by the defendant. Necessary issues were framed by the trial court. Issues No. 1 and 2 which are material for the disposal of this appeal when translated into English read as under:- (1) Does the plaintiff require the house in question for his own need ? (2) Whether the defendant would he put to greater hardship than the plaintiff if the decree for eviction is passed ? The learned Munsif, by his judgment dated January 25, 1979 decided both the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit Aggrieved, the defendant went in appeal and the learned Civil Judge Udaipur, by his judgment dated September 8, 1980 has affirmed the findings on the aforesaid two issues. Hence this second appeal by the defendant-tenant as aforesaid. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am satisfied that the judgment under appeal calls for no interference by this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellants contended that issue No. 1 was not framed as envisaged by section 13 (1 (h)of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') and, therefore, the defendant has prejudiced in leading his evidence. In my opinion, issue No. 1 as framed is comprehensive enough to cover the ground of eviction as envisaged by section 13(1)(h) of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant did not urge that any application by way of protest or demur was moved in the trial court in regard to frame of issue No. 1. Besides this the point that issue No. I was not framed covering the subject matter of section 13 (1) (h) of the Act was not raised before the lower appellate court. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant could not showing that any such ground was taken in the memo of appeal before the lower appellate court. Besides this the point that issue No. I was not framed covering the subject matter of section 13 (1) (h) of the Act was not raised before the lower appellate court. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant could not showing that any such ground was taken in the memo of appeal before the lower appellate court. If appears that the parties were quite alive to the point of reasonable and bona fide necessity and thereafter, led the evidence. In these circumstances, I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that framed of issue No. 1 has prejudicial the defendant-tenant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further challenged the finding relating to reasonable and bona.fide necessity. He read over the statements of Seth Mohd. (P. W I), Bhanwarlal (P W 2) Bastimal (D.W. 1) Madan (DW 2) and Janina Shanker (DW 3) before me. 7. The Learned Civil Judge on appraisal of the evidence on record reached the conclusion that the house in question is required by the plaintiff reasonably and bona fide. This finding is based on evidence and there is no valid reason to disturb this finding. 8. The last argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Civil Judge has erred in holding that the plaintiff would be put to greater hardship than the defendant if the decree for eviction is not passed in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge took the provisions of section 14 (2) of the Act into consideration. He examined the question of balance of convenience on the basis of the relevant circumstance which have emerged from the evidence of the parties Thereafter he reached the conclusion that the defendant does not need the house in question and, therefore, he would not be put to greater hardship than the plaintiff if the decree for eviction is passed While recording the finding on issue No. 2 relating to comparative hardship, no mistake of law has been committed by the learned Civil Judge The findings on the question of reasonable and bona fide necessity and comparative hardship are not vitiated on any count whatsoever. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. 9. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal has no force and it is dismissed summarily. 10. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. 9. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal has no force and it is dismissed summarily. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant under the instructions of his client states that 6 months' time may be allowed to the defendant-appellant nor delivering the vacant and peaceful possession of the house in question to the plaintiff-respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent states that he has no instructions from his client in regard to grant of time for eviction and that the appellant court had already allowed time to the defendant-appellant for vacating the house in question. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that his client undertakes to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the house in question within the time that may he fixed by the court. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, 3 months' time is allowed to the defendant-appellant for delivering vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff-respondent. It is, however, made clear that the plaintiff-respondent shall be entitled to recover rent/damages for use and occupation until the date of the delivery. Of the possession at the tats of Rs. 35/- per month. If the vacant and peaceful possession of the house in question is not delivered within three months' from today, the plaintiff-respondent shall be free to levy execution in regard to it.Appeal dismissed. *******