JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for eviction against defendant-appellant on the ground of default in making the payment of monthly rent, non-user of the rented premise and bonafide necessity. Suit was contested by the defendant. Trial court framed four issues. After considering the evidence of both the parties, trial court decided Issue No. 1 relating to default against the plaintiffs. Issue No. 2 regarding non-user of the shop in dispute was decided against the plaintiffs. Issue No. 3 relating to bonafide necessity was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue No. 4 relating to comparative hardship was decided against the plaintiffs by the trial court and in view of the finding of Issue No. 4, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial court. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiffs preferred first appeal. 3. It is relevant to mention that the defendant did not prefer any appeal against the finding of the trial court in respect of Issue No. 3 regarding bonafide necessity of the rented premises by the plaintiffs. 4. First appellate court discussed and re-appreciated the entire evidence and reversed the finding of Issues No. 1 and 4 and decided both the Issues in favour of the plaintiffs. However, so far as Issue No. 1 relating to default is concerned, first appellate court gave benefit of first default to the defendant and did not pass decree of eviction against the defendant. Since Issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs, therefore, on the ground of personal bonafide necessity and comparative hardship, the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 27.04.2009 allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and passed a decree of eviction in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, this second appeal has been preferred on behalf of the defendant. 5. It is relevant to mention that in pursuance of execution of decree of eviction, the plaintiffs have already got the possession of rented premise. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellant also, however, his submission is that the appeal may be decided on merits. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 7. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellant also, however, his submission is that the appeal may be decided on merits. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any illegality or perversity in the finding in respect of Issue No. 4 recorded by first appellate court. So far as finding with regard to Issue No. 3 is concerned, there is concurrent finding of both the courts below in favour of the plaintiffs. The questions of bonafide necessity as well as comparative hardship both are questions of facts in the facts and circumstances of the present case and there is concurrent finding of fact with regard to personal bonafide necessity. So far as comparative hardship is concerned, the finding record by first appellate court is final and is not open to challenge in second appeal. 8. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.Appeal dismissed. *******