JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st of January, 2001 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Kota in Civil Regular Appeal No. 119/1999. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the memo of appeal and the judgment impugned therein of the learned court below. 3. The learned first appellate court under its aforesaid judgment and decree confirmed the judgment and decree dated 6th of July, 1994 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) (North), Kota, in Civil Suit No. 177/1989. The suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent No. 1 for eviction of the tenant appellant 1 (since deceased) from the suit premises. 4. It is not in dispute that the eviction of the tenant appellant (since deceased) was sought by the plaintiff respondent No. 1 from the suit premises on the following grounds. (1) Reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit premises; (2) Default in payment of rent. 5. The learned trial court found that the plaintiff respondent No. 1 established to its satisfaction the reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit premises. The ground of default in payment of rent has also been found to established. 6. In the appeal the learned first appellate court has confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial court and granted two months time to the defendant tenant appellants for vacation of the suit premises. 7. This is second litigation between the parties. First litigation was finally decided by this court against the plaintiff respondent No. 1. In the earlier suit the eviction of the defendant tenant appellant was sought, inter aria, on the ground of bona fide necessity of the suit premises. The learned trial court in that suit accepted this ground of the plaintiff respondent but the appellate C curt reversed that finding which has been confirmed in the second appeal. The judgment of this court given in second appeal in the previous suit filed by the plaintiff respondent No. 1 against the defendant tenant appellant has been produced for the perusal of the court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord. There the point prevailed with the court was that the suit premises was not sold to the plaintiff respondent No. 1 by all the heirs and legal successors of the predecessor in title. 8. There the point prevailed with the court was that the suit premises was not sold to the plaintiff respondent No. 1 by all the heirs and legal successors of the predecessor in title. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the suit, out of which this appeal arises, also suffered from same defect. It is true that the original sale deed of the suit premises executed in favour of the plaintiff respondent by some of his heirs and legal successors of the predecessors in title. The other heirs and legal successors of the deceased, the predecessor in title, has relinquished their right, title and interest in the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 by registered documents, witch is not in dispute. By virtue of this sale deed the plaintiff respondent acquired exclusive ownership in the suit property. He steps in the shoes of co-sharers of the property who sold the same to him under the registered sale deed. The contention of Mr. Sahani is that other heirs and legal successors of the predecessor in title of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 could have relinquished their right in favour of the co-sharers and not in favour of stranger. I do not find any merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is right of co-sharer to sell his share in the property and the purchaser thereof stepped in his shoes. The plaintiff respondent has entered in the shoe of the co-sharer of the property and thus the other-co sharer thereof has all the right to relinquish their right, title and interest in the property in his favour. 9. That apart I fail to see how such a contention legitimately could have been made by the tenant appellants. They are the tenant meaning thereby having no right or title in the suit premises. In my opinion, the plea taken by the defendant tenant appellants on the face of it is dishonest one. 10. Both the courts have recorded concurrent finding on the issue of reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit premises. They are the tenant meaning thereby having no right or title in the suit premises. In my opinion, the plea taken by the defendant tenant appellants on the face of it is dishonest one. 10. Both the courts have recorded concurrent finding on the issue of reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit premises. It is no more res integra that the landlord has reasonable and bona fide necessity of suit property or not, is a pure question of fact and on this pure question of fact, concurrent finding has been recorded by both the courts below in which I do not find arty error. 11. Much emphasis has been lad by Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel for the appellant, that both the courts below have not correctly appreciated the plea that the suit is barred by principle of res judicata on this point. Elaborating this-submission, Mr. Sahani contended that earlier the plaintiff respondent No. 1 filed the suit for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises on the same ground but the decision thereon went adverse to him to and thus the ground again taken for eviction is barred by the principle of res judicata. I do not find any merit in this contention. 12. Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel for the appellant, has not cited any authority of Hon'ble the Supreme Court or this High Court or any other High Court where this proposition has been laid down that once a landlord fails in his suit for eviction on a particular ground and more particularly the reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit premises he cannot file a suit again on the same ground for eviction of the tenant once for all. 13. The Rajasthan Rent Control Act gives statutory protection to the tenants. A landlord cannot get a tenant evicted from the suit premises unless one of the grounds as enumerated in sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act aforesaid is established to the satisfaction of the court. The court may not accept on previous occasion that the suit premises has reasonably required by the landlord but the landlord is within its right and competence to say at a later stage that he needs the suit premises reasonably and bonafidely. The court may not accept on previous occasion that the suit premises has reasonably required by the landlord but the landlord is within its right and competence to say at a later stage that he needs the suit premises reasonably and bonafidely. In case, that principle, as what it is contended by the learned counsel for the defendant tenant appellant, is accepted then where on a ground of eviction the landlord fails that will not available to him once for all. It does not appear the intention of the legislature also. 14. As a result of the, aforesaid discussion, I am satisfied that no question of law much-less any substantial question of law does arise in the appeal for adjudication of the court. 15. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs which is quantified to Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only).Second Appeal Dismissed. *******