JUDGMENT 1. - In this revision petition filed under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, read with Section 115, C.P.C., the petitioner has challenged order dated 01.08.2008 passed by Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal No. 34/ 2008, whereby, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Jodhpur City, Jodhpur dated 18.11.2.004 in Civil Misc. Suit No. 113/1998. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner being tenant was in possession of shop situated at Ghantaghar, Jodhpur in between two kotha. Suit was filed by Respondent No. 1 against the petitioner for eviction and vide judgment dated 06.08,1996 the suit was decreed by the trial Court on the ground of bona fide necessity. Said judgment was further upheld by the High Court vide judgment dated 16.01.1997. Thereafter, as per contention of the petitioner he gave possession of the said shop to Respondent No. 1 owner of the shop. 3. The suit filed by Respondent No. 1 was decreed on the ground of bona fide necessity but Respondent No. 1 sold the said shop on 26.02.1998 to Respondents Nos.2 and 3. Thereafter, an application under Section 15 of the Act was filed before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) with the prayer that after obtaining the decree on the ground of bona fide necessity, the plaintiff-decree holder has sold the shop, therefore, it is obvious that decree was obtained narrating wrong ground, therefore, the possession of the shop may be restored in favour of the petitioner. 4. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 15 in the year 1998 was decided finally after providing opportunity of hearing and evidence to both the parties vide order dated 18.11.2004, by which, learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner against which appeal was preferred and said appeal was finally rejected by the Addl. District judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jodhpur vide judgment dated 01.08.2008 and judgment rendered by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Jodhpur City, Jodhpur was upheld. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that both the Courts below committed serious error while not considering the matter in right perspective. Further, it is argued that so called sale-deed was filed which is executed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of Respondents Nos. Dn.) Jodhpur City, Jodhpur was upheld. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that both the Courts below committed serious error while not considering the matter in right perspective. Further, it is argued that so called sale-deed was filed which is executed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 but, instead of deciding tile said application prior to deciding the appeal, learned Court below committed serious illegality. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that earlier decree was obtained by raising the false ground and after taking possession from the petitioner the shop in question was sold, therefore, as per Section 15 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 the petitioner is very much entitled for restitution of possession of the shop in question. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the judgment of the trial Court a well as appellate Court. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 15 of the Act of 1950 was decided by framing three issues by the trial Court while adjudicating issue No. 1 it was held that petitioner has not proved the fact that shop in question has been sold to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by Respondent No. 1. Further, while deciding issue No.2, it has been categorically held that defendant proved before the Court that shop in question is not in existence and it has been converted into a go-down; meaning thereby, if the shop in question is not in existence and it has been altered into go-down, there, there is no question of restoring the possession to the petitioner. In my opinion, concurrent finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below does not require any interference. The shop in question is not in existence, so also, the petitioner has failed to prove before the Court that shop in question is sold to Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. 7. In my opinion, concurrent finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below does not require any interference. The shop in question is not in existence, so also, the petitioner has failed to prove before the Court that shop in question is sold to Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. 7. Further, the contention of the petitioner that application filed by him before the appellate Court for taking the sale-deed on record is decided along with final judgment of appeal is also rejected because Respondents Nos.2 and 3 are bona fide purchasers and they purchased the shop in question in the year 1998 and took possession of the said shop and they are enjoying possession as title-holder since 1998, therefore, it cannot be said that any sin has been committed by Respondents No.2 and 3 in purchasing the shop in question. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that judgment of the appellate Court is based upon sound reasons. Hence, I find no illegality in both the judgments passed by the Court below.Hence, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******