Order Heard Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellant having lost in both the Courts below. 3. Original plaintiffs had filed a suit for eviction against the defendants on the ground of default in payment of rent. Subsequently, respondent no. 1 purchased the suit property and by amendment he was impleaded as plaintiff. Apart from the ground of default in payment of rent he also prayed for eviction of the defendant from the suit property on the ground of personal necessity. 4. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court on the basis of evidence and material on record concurrently found that there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant i.e. respondent no. 1 herein. 5. Both the Courts below decided both the points in favour of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to vacate the suit premises. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent no. 1 herein did not establish the fact that he became the owner of the suit premises after purchase of the suit premises from the original plaintiff and, therefore, the suit at his instance on the ground of personal necessity could not have been decreed. 7. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Both the Courts below held on facts that the respondent no. 1 stepped into the shoes of the original plaintiff, who sold the suit premises to the respondent no. 1. 8. Since both the Courts below arrived at the concurrent findings of fact on the basis of evidence and materials on record, therefore, I find no ground to disturb the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by both the Courts below. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. 9. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed.