JUDGMENT 1. - This is second appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the judgement and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tonk whereby the first appeal filed by the defendant-appellants against the judgement and decree dated 10.4.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tonk, has been dismissed. 2. The Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tonk had decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. 3. Shri N.K. Maloo, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has argued that the courts below have committed a serious error in deciding the issue of personal bona fide necessity in favour of plaintiff. The fact is that the plaintiff is about 73 years old and is not in a position to do any business at such fag end of his life. He is a retired Government teacher and getting pension of Rs. 11,644/- per month. The ground of bona fide personality necessity is not genuine. Apart from pension, plaintiff is also getting the rent of two other shops and two godowns besides he has two more shops in which his sons are doing business. He also obtained the possession of Hanuman Dhaba, which was situated on the roofs of the aforesaid shops. In the facts of the case, therefore, it cannot be said that plaintiff and his wife would not be able to meet their living expenses. 4. The other argument that is raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the plaintiff had retired on 31.10.1994, whereas he filed the suit for eviction on 5.8.1997, which is three years after the date of his retirement. Immediately before the date of his retirement, the plaintiff had sold two shops and one of the shops was sold by him to a person named Satyanarain Sen on 15.12.1999 during the pendency of the suit. The necessity of the plaintiff therefore cannot be said to be bona fide. It is therefore prayed that the impugned judgement and decree dated 10.4.07 and 9.7.2010 passed by both the courts below may be quashed and set aside. 5. Shri Gaurav Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has put in appearance by way of caveat and opposed the appeal and argued that necessity of landlord has to be judged from his stand point and not from the point of view of defendant. 5. Shri Gaurav Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has put in appearance by way of caveat and opposed the appeal and argued that necessity of landlord has to be judged from his stand point and not from the point of view of defendant. It is denied that the plaintiff has attained the age of 73 years. In fact when he retired on 31.10.1994, he was only 60 years old. He requested the defendant to vacate the shop for some time and which is why he had to file suit. The suit was filed within three years from the date of retirement. It cannot be said to be delayed. It is contended that the fact that other sons of plaintiff are running their own business, cannot be a reason to deny the benefit of bona fide personal necessity envisaged in the Act to the landlord when he actually needed such shop for his personal necessity. Learned counsel submitted that this issue, in any case, has been decided on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties and it is an issue touching upon the factual finding and therefore does not raise any substantial questions of law enumerated in para 4 of the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has rejoined and has made an alternative argument that in case this Court is persuaded to entertain the appeal on the substantial questions of law proposed in para 4, it may consider granting reasonable time to the defendant-appellants for vacating the shop keeping in view the fact that they have been tenant in this shop for last 50 years and from such shop, they are running a business, which is the sole source of their livelihood. They need some time to arrange for alternative accommodation. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has not opposed the alternative prayer but has submitted that this Court may grant only a reasonable time and not excessive for vacating the shop, subject to the condition that the appellants shall file an undertaking that in that event the plaintiff-respondent would not be required to initiate eviction proceedings for vacation of the shop. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. The arguments which have been raised when analysed in the light of the questions of law proposed in para 4 of the memorandum of appeal, I find that none of these questions, in fact, can be said to have arisen as substantial questions of law because whether or not the plaintiff-respondent had personal bona fide necessity has to be essentially decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties. The fact that plaintiff is a retired Government servant and his other two sons are running business from other shops and that he was in receipt of rent from some other premises, cannot be a reason to hold that he is not entitled to start his own business even after his retirement. 10. I am therefore not persuaded to entertain the appeal on merits. However, considering the fact that the appellants have been running the shop from the rented premises for last 5 decades, reasonable time period for vacating the shop should be given to them. 11. It is therefore directed that appellants shall vacate the shop and hand over the vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff on 10.11.2012 and file an undertaking to that effect before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tonk to the effect that he would vacate the shop and handover possession thereof to the plaintiff respondent on 10.11.2012. In the event of their failure to do so, that Court would direct his immediate eviction without requiring the plaintiff-respondent to initiate execution proceedings. 12. The appeal is dismissed however with the aforesaid direction.Appeal dismissed. *******