JUDGMENT 1. :- In order to adjudge whether any substantial question of law is involved, I heard the learned counsel for the parties at the stage of admission of the instant second appeal. I am satisfied that no substantial question of law is involved therefore it is not necessary to formulate such question under sub-section (4) of section 100 Code of Civil Procedure. 2. A suit for ejectment and recovery of rent was instituted on November 21, 1968 by plaintiff Ram Gopal (since deceased) against the defendant Shanti Lal on the ground of bonafide personal necessity and default in payment of rent. The suit was decreed. The tenant Shantilal (for short the tenant) preferred appeal. The appellate court remanded the case for deciding the case afresh in the light of comparative hardship of the parties. Thereafter additional issue of comparative hardship was framed. During the pendency of civil suit plaintiff Ram Gopal died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The learned trial court after recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of the land lord vide judgment and decree dated April 27, 1993. The tenant preferred civil regular first appeal against the said decree and judgment but the appeal was also dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment and decree dated October 27, 1993. Hence this second appeal. 3. Mr. Sagar Mal Mehta, learned Senior Counsel urged that the courts below committed illegality in holding that deceased Ram Gopal was the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family and the suit instituted by him for the necessity of his grand son was not maintainable. The decision of the courts below in deciding issue of bonafide personal necessity and comparative hardship in favour of the land lord is vitiated on account of preponderating weight of evidence against the plaintiff landlord. The courts below also committed illegality in rejecting the tenant's application under Order 13 Rule 2, Order 16 Rule 14, Order 6 rule 17 and Order 7 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code. The courts below misread the evidence and further committed error in not abating the suit when necessary heirs of the deceased were not brought on record. Mr. Mehta learned counsel also canvassed that in not considering the question of partial eviction the courts below committed illegality and the impugned decisions deserve to be set aside. Mr. The courts below misread the evidence and further committed error in not abating the suit when necessary heirs of the deceased were not brought on record. Mr. Mehta learned counsel also canvassed that in not considering the question of partial eviction the courts below committed illegality and the impugned decisions deserve to be set aside. Mr. J.S. Rastogi, learned counsel for the landlord supported the judgments of the courts below and contended that when the discretion has been exercised by the trial court and the first appellate court in rejecting the application under Order 13 Rule 2 and Order 6 rule 17 Civil Procedure Code, etc. the High Court should not interfere in second appeal as no substantial question of law is involved. He placed reliance on Kameda vs. Baghu (AIR 1950 Privy Council 68) . If business of temporary nature is done by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit for eviction, it will not affect the ground of bonafide necessity and decree for eviction can be passed. In this regard reliance was placed on Padam Chand's case (1986 R.L.R. 859) and Kishan Lal Mahajan's case (1992 (2) F.C.J. 591 (Punjab) . If alternate accommodation acquired by the land lord during the pendency of the litigation but they were not found suitable for the business, the decree for eviction can be passed even considering the alternative accommodation. Reliance in this respect was placed on J. Pande's case ( AIR 1987 Supreme Court 857) and Dr. Saroj Kumar's case ( AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2131). Mr. Rastogi further submitted that the tenant did not plead the ground in respect of partial eviction in the memo of second appeal. Even no evidence was led by heir as to what was the size of the disputed premises. The eviction decree relates to single shop of small size and question of partial eviction under such a situation cannot be allowed to be raised. He placed reliance on M.C. Sindhi vs. Heman Das (1995 (1) RLW 63) and Ram Lal vs. Girraj (1992 (2) RLW 147) . 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the record. The tenant appellant has submitted an application under Section 151 read with Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code for amending the written statement before this court. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the record. The tenant appellant has submitted an application under Section 151 read with Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code for amending the written statement before this court. In the application the appellant averred that the land lord respondent constructed five more shops and he came to know about this construction work only a month before. The plaintiff respondent also filed a suit for ejectment against one Shri Vinod Sharma in which decree was passed and possession of the shop was taken by the respondents some six months back. I have taken note of alleged subsequent events but I am unable to consider such vague statements. The appellant did not point out exact details of the new construction as well as the suit against alleged Vinod Sharma. A finding of fact is conclusive in second appeal unless it is arrived at by committing an error of law or of procedure. The same principles apply with greater force in the case of concurrent findings of fact by two courts. Findings of learned courts below in respect of bonafide personal necessity and comparative hardship are based on evidence on record. The discretion was rightly exercised by the courts below in rejecting the application of the appellant moved under Order 13 Rule 2, Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 7 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code. The necessary heirs of the deceased Ram Gopal were brought on record and the suit could not have been abated. In the facts and circumstances of the case the question of partial eviction is not required to be considered. The appellant has failed to show the size of the shop and further this question was not raised in the memo of appeal. The courts below have not misread the evidence. Suit was rightly instituted by the plaintiff Ram Gopal. As already stated no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed without order as to costs. Record sent back forthwith.Appeal dismissed. *******