JUDGMENT 1. - The facts giving rise to this appeal filed by the defendant are as under:- Plaintiff Sagarmal had filed a suit for eviction against the defendant on the grounds of non-payment of rent nuisance and bona fide personal requirement. The suit was contested by the defendant. The learned trial court after framing the necessary issues recorded evidence of the parties and vide judgment dated 18.5.1979 decreed the suit on the ground of personal bonafide requirement of the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.4.1981 passed by the learned Civil Judge Jhunjhunu in civil appeal No. 2 of 1981. Hence this appeal. 2. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff was admittedly earlier employed as a Vaid in Bhilwara and that according to the case set up by him. in his plaint he was to shift to Nawalgarh where the shop in dispute is situate as his brother had died and there was no one else to look after his children but it has come on record that his brother Sitaram has no children. It is thus contended that the case set up in the plaint having not been proved by the plaintiff no decree for eviction could be passed. The learned trial court has found that the plaintiff has shifted to Nawalgarh and has been residing there since before 1974 when the suit for eviction was filed. This finding of fact is supported by the evidence of the witnesses produced by the defendant himself and has not been agitated before me. In the plaint the plaintiff had mentioned that after the death of his brother Sitaram there was no one to look after his (Plaintiff's) and his brother Sitaram's children (Hindi Matter). Of course it has come on record that Sitaram had no children but what is mentioned in the plaint is to be read in accordance with the context in which it has been used. Of course it has come on record that Sitaram had no children but what is mentioned in the plaint is to be read in accordance with the context in which it has been used. It appears that plaintiff's family was also residing in Nawalgarh where Sitaram was looking after his own family as also the family of the plaintiff and that after the death of Sitaram the plaintiff wanted to look after his own family in Nawalgarh as also the widow of Sitaram and the words used "HINDI MATTER" is meant for the family of the plaintiff as also for the widow of the deceased. The main pleading in the case of eviction was about the personal requirement of the plaintiff which stands proved and this concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the learned lower courts. The contention is therefore without force. 3. No other point has been raised before me. 4. This appeal is without merit and is dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed with costs. *******