JUDGMENT 1. - Broad features of substantial question of law formulated by this court while admitting instant civil second appeal preferred by the defendant tenant are as under : "Whether landlord's suit for eviction can be decreed on the ground of his personal necessity that in his rental shop he was paying higher rent then that being paid to him by the tenant for the shop in dispute ? 2. Ground for eviction was the need of the landlord Moji Ram to shift his betel shop from rented premises to his own for the reason that he was paying more rent. Learned trial court after observing that it was a case of real requirement and genuine need of the landlord, decreed the suit. Learned appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court. The tenant has now assailed the concurrent finding of the courts below. 3. Admitted facts are that the shop in dispute was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month by the tenant from Smt. Roop Kanwar who transferred it in favour of landlord Moji Ram by a registered sale-deed executed on June 7, 1975. Moji Ram purchased the said shop in order to shift his betel business from the rented shop situated at Rasta Ghee Walan where he was paying Rs. 50/- per month as rent. 4. Mr. R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the tenant appellant canvassed that occupation of tenanted premises by landlord at higher rent alone or by itself is not sufficient and landlord is not entitled to eject tenant from the premises. Reliance was placed on Rajendra Kumar v. Jamna Das, 1990 (2) Rent Control Reporter 281 and Ramji Lal v. ADJ, 1978 (2) RCJ 64 . 5. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the submission of the learned counsel. The case Rajendra Kumar v. Jamna Das (supra) is distinguishable. In that case the landlord who was a wealthy businessman owning number of shops wanted to shift his electrical shop from rented premises to his own on the grounds that he was paying more rent and that shop was more suitable. Both grounds were negatived by the trial court and the First Appellate Court. The Second Appellate Court however interfered with the concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below and observed that the need of the landlord was bona fide. Both grounds were negatived by the trial court and the First Appellate Court. The Second Appellate Court however interfered with the concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below and observed that the need of the landlord was bona fide. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court under those circumstances set aside the judgment of the High Court (Second Appellate Court) and observed that financial condition was not relevant as both the landlord and tenant were affluent and rich persons. Hon'ble Supreme court affirmed the following finding of the First Appellate Court - "Occupation of tenanted premises by landlord at higher rent alone or by itself is not sufficient and landlord is not entitled to eject tenant from the premises unless the premises occupied by him are shown to be unsuitable inadequate or insufficient. Where plaintiff proves that his necessity is both genuine and reasonable; that premises were required augmenting his income as the income so far received was not sufficient for him to make the two ends meet there would be no question of mere desire but it would be a case of real requirement and genuine need." 6. On a careful scrutiny of record I noticed that the two courts below in recording the findings, neither ignored material evidence nor any was misread. The landlord purchased the shop in question in consideration of Rs. 9499/- in the year 1975 with a desire to start his betel business in his own shop. It is established from the record that the landlord is not a wealthy businessman. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash v. Bhagwan Das, 1986 (2) UJ (SC) 287 indicated that a landlord who was living in rented premises should not be deprived of benefit of enjoyment of his own property. In the instant case desire of the landlord, who runs his betel business in a rented shop on higher rent, to shift his business in his own shop from where he gets a megre rent of Rs. 5/- per month, cannot be termed as `dehonest desire'. Both the courts below rightly held that the landlord has personal bonafide necessity of the shop. I do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the two courts below. 7. 5/- per month, cannot be termed as `dehonest desire'. Both the courts below rightly held that the landlord has personal bonafide necessity of the shop. I do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the two courts below. 7. This takes me to another submission of learned counsel for the tenant in regard to question of partial eviction of the shop in dispute. Though no plea was raised by the tenant to consider the question of partial eviction but in view of settled legal position and sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950, I scanned the record to see as to whether any hardship shall be caused to the landlord or tenant by passing the decree in respect of a part of the shop in question. A look at the registered sale deed demonstrates that the size of shop in question is 9'-6' x 9'-6". Tenant Vijay Lal who used to run his barber business in the shop, died on March 10, 1992. Looking to the small size of the shop, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in passing a decree of part of the premises. 8. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in the instant second appeal, it is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.Second Appeal dismissed. *******