JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction in respect of rented premise against defendant-appellant, which has been decreed by both the courts below on the ground of personal bonafide necessity. Hence, this second appeal has been preferred on behalf of the defendant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has also filed an application under Order 41 Order 27 C.P.C. for taking on record a certified copy of order dated 12.08.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh District Ajmer in Bail Application No. 165/2008 to show that the respondent Rajendra Singh is one of the Directors of M/s. Hy-Tek Marbles Private Limited, Harmada Road, Industrial Area, Madanganj, Kishangarh. Since he is one of the Directors of the said Company, therefore, his personal bonafide necessity in respect of the rented premise has gone and the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. Respondent has filed reply to the application. He has also filed an additional affidavit in support of reply mentioning therein that order dated 12.08.2008 relates to a criminal complaint filed by E.S.I. Department way back on 12.07.1999 in respect of offence for not depositing E.S.I. contribution for the period from April, 1998 to December, 1998. It is also mentioned in the reply that Hy-Tek Marbles Private Limited was incorporated on 02.02.1995 and the respondent was appointed as Additional Director on 24.03.1995 and he resigned from the post of Director on 18.03.1999 and thereafter, he is no more Director of said Company and today he is engaged in cloth selling business, therefore, order dated 12.08.2008 filed by the appellant alongwith the application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. is not relevant and the same is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent requires rented premise in dispute for his personal use. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and I find that order dated 12.08.2008 relates to one criminal complaint filed by ESI Department on 12.07.1999 with regard to an offence relating to non-deposit of ESI contribution for the period from April, 1998 to December, 1998, which is clear from copy of criminal complaint, annexed with additional affidavit of respondent filed in support of reply to application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. He has also annexed a copy of Resignation of Respondent dated 18.03.1999. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the document i.e. order dated 12.08.2008 is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the present controversy, therefore, application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. 6. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is only with regard to order dated 12.08.2008 to the effect that since plaintiff-respondent has become a Director of M/s. Hy-Tek Marbles Private Limited, therefore, his personal necessity has gone and both the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside. 7. As stated above, while rejecting application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C., it has been observed that respondent became Additional Director of the said Company on 24.03.1995 and he resigned from the Directorship of 18.03.1999 and all these facts are not to be treated as part of record, as application of the appellant under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. has already been dismissed, therefore, the appellant is unable to satisfy this Court that respondent has been and is still continuing as Director in the said Company. 8. No other point has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant. 9. Both the courts below have decreed the plaintiff's suit for eviction on the ground of personal bonafide necessity. The question of bonafide necessity in the facts and circumstances of the present case is purely a question of fact and there is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, which cannot be interfered with by this Court in second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. 10. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.Appeal dismissed. *******