JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal has been filed by the defendant- tenants being aggrieved by the concurrent decree of the Courts below for eviction from the suit premises - a shop ad measuring 10' x 35' situated at Pali Bazar, Dhan Mandi, Mahamandir, jodhpur on the ground of default, bona fide need of the landlord and nuisance. 2. The shop in question was given to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- in the year 1973. The same was taken on rent by defendant Om Prakash, whose legal representatives are now appellants before this Court from father-in-law of the plaintiff Sint. Poornima and her husband Jatan Raj, who are respondents on record now. 3. The bona fide need of the landlord established before the learned trial Court is that the plaintiffs themselves were running the STD PCO Booth in a place under the staircase and, therefore, they needed the suit premises as a larger premises for setting up their STD PCO booth. The husband of the plaintiff No. 1, plaintiff No. 2 was not doing any other job and, therefore, the only source of livelihood was this STD PCO booth and the suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 24.5.2006 and Rs. 200/- was fixed as mesne profits. The first appeal also came to be dismissed on 28.1.2009 by the learned first appellate Court and applications under Order 41, Rule 27 and Order 6, Rule 17 for amendment of written statement filed by the tenant were also rejected by the learned first appellate Court. These applications were filed by the defendant-tenant to bring on record the subsequent development that another shop had become available to the landlord, which was, however, given on rent to another tenant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendants, Mr. L.K. Purohit relying upon the following judgment vehemently submitted that firstly on husband of the plaintiff Smt. Poornima had appeared in the witness box and secondly the bona fide need of the landlord ended with the STD PCO business going out of vogue, therefore, the defendants, who were carrying on the business of flour mill could not be evicted from the shop in question. (1) Shantilal Kesharmal Gandhi v. Prabhakar Balkrishna Mahanubhav, (2007) 2 SCC 619 (2) Kailash Giri v. Akhey Giri through LR's & Ors., 2006 (1) WLC 615 (3) B.V. Nagesh & Anr. (1) Shantilal Kesharmal Gandhi v. Prabhakar Balkrishna Mahanubhav, (2007) 2 SCC 619 (2) Kailash Giri v. Akhey Giri through LR's & Ors., 2006 (1) WLC 615 (3) B.V. Nagesh & Anr. v. H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy, 2010 SCW 6184 (4) Amba Lal v. Manoj Kumar, 2010 (2) RJT 994 (5) Rishab Chand Bhandari v. National Engineering Industry Ltd., 2010 AIR SCW 154 (6) Murlidhar v. Nandkishore & Ors., 2006 (3) WLC 264 (7) M/s. Om Prakash Girdhari Lal v. Spl. judge N.D.P.S. Cases, Sriganganagar, 2008 (2) DNJ 586 (8) Mohd. Ismail v. Dinkar Vinqyakarao Dorlikar, 2010 AIR SCW 4207 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs, Mr. S.N. Pungalia strongly opposed these submissions and urged that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the finding of facts returned by the Courts below are based on cogent and relevant evidence and the second appeal deserves to be dismissed as the bonafide need of the landlord was fully established before the learned trial Court and as per the catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not for the tenant to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should satisfy his bonafide need for his business place and from the facts found by the Courts below it was clear that the very source of livelihood of plaintiffs was the STD PCO booth, which is presently run under the staircase and they need bigger premises for carrying out this business. 6. Having heard the learned counsels and upon perusal of the impugned orders passed by learned Courts below, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court and the present second appeal is liable to be dismissed and same is accordingly dismissed 7. The appellant-defendant-tenants shall handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises in dispute to the respondent-plaintiffs-landlord on or before 15.7.2011 and shall pay the arrears of rent/mesne profits as determined by the trial Court and shall further pay mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month w.e.f. May, 2011. The appellant-defendant-tenants shall handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises in dispute to the respondent-plaintiffs-landlord on or before 15.7.2011 and shall pay the arrears of rent/mesne profits as determined by the trial Court and shall further pay mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month w.e.f. May, 2011. If the appellant-defendant-tenants do not handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property in question to the respondent- plaintiff-landlord within two months or does not pay the arrears of rent/mesne profits as directed above, the respondent-plaintiffs shall be free to execute the decree as well as to initiate the contempt proceedings in this Court. 8. The present second appeal is dismissed as aforesaid. No order as to costs.Second appeal dismissed. *******