JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 28-3- 1985 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge No. 1, Alwar in civil appeal No. 75/84 against the judgment and decree dated 22-10-1977 passed by the learned Addl. Munsif No. 1, Alwar in civil Suit No. 30/74. The brief facts giving rise to this second appeal are as under:- The plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant respondent Ganga Ram for his eviction from the shop in dispute situated in Alwar on the ground that the defendant was in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months and also that the shop in dispute was bonafide required by the plaintiff for use of his brother Roop Narayan, who was a member of his family. The suit was contested by the defendant. In the written statement, the defendant denied that Roop Narayan was the member of the family of the plaintiff and the shop was bonafide required by the plaintiff. He also pleaded that the rent for the period in question had remained unpaid because the plaintiff had failed to accept it even when sent to him by money-order. In the written statement itself the defendant stated that whatever amount was demanded by the plaintiff by way of rent would be paid by him at any moment as directed by the court and also moved a separate application stating these facts and thereafter deposited the arrears of rent with interest on 5-4-1974. The learned trial court framed the issues only in regard to the personal bona fide necessity of the plaintiff and the trial proceeded only on the basis of the said issues. After recording the evidence produced by the parties, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the shop in dispute was bona fide required by the plaintiff who would suffer more inconvenience if the decree for eviction is not passed in his favour than the inconvenience to be suffered by the defendant if the decree is passed against him. Consequently, the decree for eviction was passed against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the defendant was heard by the learned Addl. Consequently, the decree for eviction was passed against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the defendant was heard by the learned Addl. Civil Judge No. 1, Alwar who vide the impugned judgment dated 28-3-1985 accepted the appeal on the ground of comparative hard-ship and has thus dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has approached this court by filing this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure . 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 3. Shri Jain, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has urged that the learned first Appellate Court having come to the conclusion that the shop in dispute was bonafide required by the plaintiff-appellant, he came to a wrong conclusion and without any cogent reason that the defendant would suffer greater hardship if the decree is passed against him than the hard-ship that would be suffered by the plaintiff if the decree is not passed in his favour. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant on the other hand is that the suit had to be dismissed not only on the ground taken by the learned first Appellate Court but also on the ground that the brother of the appellant plaintiff cannot be said to be dependent on him and there was no evidence to show that the plaintiff had been supporting him and that as mentioned in the application moved by the defendant under Order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the brother has been employed in the Education Department as an Audit Clerk. 4. It is not disputed that ordinarily a younger brother would not be a member of the family of his elder brother and unless he is supported by the elder brother he cannot be said to be dependent on him. There is no finding that the plaintiff had been supporting his younger brother Roop Narayan and it is not disputed before me that now even that Roop Narayan has been employed. In absence of any evidence that Roop Narayan was being supported by the plaintiff, it cannot be said that he was a member of the family of the plaintiff and, as such, no decree for eviction could be claimed for his requirement. In absence of any evidence that Roop Narayan was being supported by the plaintiff, it cannot be said that he was a member of the family of the plaintiff and, as such, no decree for eviction could be claimed for his requirement. In these circumstances, even if it be held that the appellant-plaintiff would suffer greater hardship if the decree for eviction is not passed in his favour than the hardship which would be suffered by the defendant if the decree is passed against him, in my view, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant cannot be decreed for the reason that the requirement of his younger brother Roop Narayan, who has not been proved to be dependent on the plaintiff, cannot be said to be the requirement of the plaintiff. 1, therefore, find great force in the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent and, as such, find that this appeal cannot be allowed. 5. If has next been contended by Shri Jain that the decree for eviction had also been claimed on the ground of non-payment of rent and that the suit was filed in the year 1974 and at the time of filing of the written statement, according to the provision of law contained in Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (the Act), the defendant was required to deposit arrears of rent along with the interest on the first date of hearing and the defendant not having deposited the amount on the first date of hearing, but having deposited it later a decree for eviction had to be passed on the ground of non-payment of rent. 6. As noted above, the defendant had specifically pleaded that he had tendered the rent to the plaintiff, who had refused to accept it even when sent by money-order and, as such, the rent could not be paid because of no fault of his. It cannot be disputed that only if the court comes to the conclusion that the tenant was in arrears of rent and had failed to pay or tender it to the land- lord, a ground for eviction is made out. It cannot be disputed that only if the court comes to the conclusion that the tenant was in arrears of rent and had failed to pay or tender it to the land- lord, a ground for eviction is made out. After filing of the written statement and the above said application where it was pleaded that the rent had been tendered to the land- lord, the matter was not agitated by the plaintiff-land-lord who did not even claim any issue and went with the trial only on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. In absence of any finding that the arrears in rent was because of the fault of the tenant, no decree could be passed and no issue having been claimed by the plaintiff, who did not lead any evidence on this ground and did not press for any issue, the learned trial court rightly did not deal with this point and, consequently, it has to be said that this point was decided against the plaintiff, who, admittedly, did not file any appeal against the decision of the learned trial court. This argument thus is not available to the appellant. 7. Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******