JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal has been preferred by Ganesh-tenant-defendant against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Bikaner dated 7.8.1998 by which he has dismissed first appeal and affirmed the judgment of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) No. 2, Bikaner dated 19.2.1998 decreeing the suit for eviction. 2. The facts are that a shop of plaintiff-respondent is situated at Bikaner on Bikaner Ajmer Road described in para No. 1 of the plaint. The same was let out to defendant-appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. He did not make payment of rent after 20.1.1993 and committed default. The plaintiff-respondent required the shop for personal bona fide use of his son who had completed education of law and was practicing as advocate as junior to Shri Sayyed Anwar Ali Advocate, Bikaner. It was further pleaded that if the shop was not vacated by the defendant-tenant the plaintiff will be put to more inconvenience in comparison to the defendant. Nuisance was an additional ground for eviction and the material alteration was also one of the grounds of eviction. 3. Defendant-appellant admitted in his written statement that the shop was taken on rent about 13 years ago and that he made payments of rent but receipts were not issued by the plaintiff-respondent. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff-landlord had three other shops as well as underground area and that the landlord did not bona fidely require the disputed shop. The defendant-appellant further pleaded that he was a poor man having four daughters and that he had established his business at the shop and if he was asked to shift to some other place he would be ruined as he may not be successful in his business at other place. It was further pleaded that Rajesh, the son of the plaintiff-respondent, was working with other advocates in Phar Bazar where he had opened his office on the first floor alongwith other advocates. 4. The learned trial judge after framing the relevant issues came to the conclusion that the defendant-tenant had committed default but he was entitled to the benefit under section 13(6) of the Rent Control Act. 4. The learned trial judge after framing the relevant issues came to the conclusion that the defendant-tenant had committed default but he was entitled to the benefit under section 13(6) of the Rent Control Act. But it came to the conclusion that the plaintiff respondent had proved the personal bona fide need and that the plaintiff-respondent would be put to more hardship in case the shop is not vacated by the defendant-appellant.111e issues relating to the nuisance and the material alteration were not pressed by the plaintiff-respondent. The trial Court decreed the suit. The decree was affirmed by the learned appellate Judge. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower Courts have not correctly appreciated the evidence because the landlord's son was simply a junior to Shri Anwar Ali Advocate and was hearing the practical side of law. He did not require the shop for his office immediately. He also submitted that the shop in dispute was only 7' x 8' which was not sufficient and suitable for the office of an advocate. He also drew my attention to the statement of Rajesh Kumar. He has wrongly interpreted the sta tement of Rajesh Kumar while submitting his arguments that he did not require the shop for his office. He submitted that the substantial question of law in this appeal is that the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the evidence. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that when there is a concurrent finding of two Courts below this Court will not re-appreciate the evidence and will not interfere in the concurrent finding. Reliance has been placed on Mohan Ial v. Snot. Parvati Devi, 1997 DNJ (Raj.) page 197. He also relied on Rani Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar & Bros. & Anr., 1998 DNJ (SC) page 323 wherein it has been held that the substantial question of bona fide requirement is not a substantial question of law. 8. It need not be reemphasized that a concurrent finding of fact is conclusive in second appeal and this Court cannot interfere in the finding of facts arrived by two Courts below by re-appreciating the evidence. 9. I have gone through the entire record and I do not find any substantial question of law in this appeal. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. 9. I have gone through the entire record and I do not find any substantial question of law in this appeal. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. In the end, learned counsel for the appellant-tenant prayed that the tenant-appellant may be.given 12 months time to vacate the suit premises. The long period prayed was resisted by the learned counsel for the respondent. 11. I have considered this aspect of the matter and I am of the view that four months' time may be granted to the tenant. The appeal is dismissed but the tenant-appellant is granted four months time from today to vacate the suit premises provided he submits an undertaking before the trial Court that he will hand over vacant possession of the suit property on or before the date of expiry of four months from today and shall not part with possession of the suit property to any other person during this period. He shall also make payment of all arrears of rent within a period of one month from today and shall continue to make payment of rent till he vacates the suit premises. No orders as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******