JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant (landlord). Perused the order dated April 16, 1981 of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur and the record. 2. The finding arrived at by the learned Civil Judge, in respect of issue No. 4 was only challenged before me. Issue No. 4 when translated into English reads as under : "Whether the defendant will be put to greater hardship than the plaintiff if decree for ejectment is passed and, therefore, decree for ejectment should not be passed." The learned Civil Judge after taking into consideration the arguments that were advanced on behalf of the parties in connection with issue No. 4, decided it against the plaintiff-appellant and in favour of the defendant. The learned Civil Judge has said in his judgment under appeal while deciding issue No. 4 that the appellant's son is carrying on business in a rented shop, which is not far away from the shop in dispute, that the defendant who is a 'Sonar' has been doing the business of 'Saraf' (the dealer, who does the business in ornaments) and that the shop in dispute is situated in Sarafa Bazar. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff wants to carry on business of general merchandise. Taking aforesaid facts and circumstances into consideration, the learned Civil Judge opined that the defendant would be put to greater hardship than the plaintiff if the decree for ejectment is passed. This finding relating to the comparative hardship cannot be interfered with in second appeal as it is based on evidence. It was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court Bhoraram v. Ameerchand as under : "The High Court, however, seems to have justified its interference in second appeal mainly on the ground that the judgment of the court below were perverse and were given in utter disregard of the important materials on the record particularly misconstruction of the rent note. Even if we accept the main reason given by the High Court the utmost that could be said was that the findings of fact by the courts below were wrong or grossly inexcusable but that by itself would not entitle the High Court to interfere in the absence of a clear error of law." I am not satisfied that the finding of comparative hardship, which was recorded by the learned Civil Judge against the plaintiff is vitiated on account of any substantial error of law. In my opinion, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. 3. It is, accordingly, dismissed summarily.Appeal dismissed. *******