JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal has been filed by the appellant-tenant against the concurrent findings of two courts below passing the eviction decree in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents-landlords on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiffs for seeking eviction of the suit premises, a shop situated near Thathera Ki Bagechi, Naya Kuan, Bikaner. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff-respondents had large family of 15-16 members and required the suit shop for carrying on their own business in the said suit shop. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant Mr. Ravi Bhansali submitted that the plaintiffs had not come to the Court with clean hands for seeking eviction decree as the said suit shop claimed to be falling in the share of the plaintiff Amar Chand under partition decree by the learned trial Court was only under a preliminary decree and other brothers Ashok Kumar had not appeared in witness box and since final decree was not passed, therefore, the plaintiff could not claim that the said shop fell in his share. He also submitted that the plaintiffs had constructed a big house for residential purposes and therefore, could not claim said suit shop for alleged residential accommodation of the large family. 3. These contentions are opposed by Mr. S.C. Maloo, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs - respondents, who submitted that both the Courts below have concurrently arrived at findings of facts about the personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiffs-respondents as well as comparative hardship as the defendant had alternative accommodation available to him and on account of members of the plaintiffs' family increasing, the plaintiff required the suit shop for carrying on his own business. He further submitted that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord as to how he should adjust his affairs. 4. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the orders of the Courts below, this Court is satisfied that both the courts below have arrived at findings of facts about personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiff - respondent considering the relevant evidence before them and there is neither any misreading of evidence nor the findings can be said to be perverse in any manner. The findings of bonafide necessity as well as comparative hardship are essentially findings of facts and unless such findings are shown to be perverse, no interference in second appeal under section 100 C.P.C. is required as no substantial question of law can be said to be arising out of said findings. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and the second appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No order as to costs. 5. The defendant - appellant shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit shop to the plaintiffs - respondents within a period of two months from today and also pay all the arrears of rent and mesne profits as already directed by the Court below. The mesne profit shall stand increased to Rs.1000/- per month from December, 2008. If the mesne profit is not paid and vacant and peaceful possession of suit premises is not handed over within two months, the plaintiff shall be entitled to invoke contempt jurisdiction of this Court besides execution of decree in normal course.Appeal dismissed. *******