JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. The instant appeal was preferred in 2015 against the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2015 passed by first appellate Court i.e. Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) West, Jaipur City, Jaipur was upheld. By way of the aforementioned judgments, the Civil Suit No. 1316/1993 (685/80) was decreed in favour of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for rent and eviction. 2. Brief facts which need to be addressed are that on 23.07.1976 plaintiff-respondent No. 1 preferred a suit against the appellants for claiming rent and for seeking eviction from the rented premises pointing out that the appellants-defendants had taken on rent one shop situated at Chowk Vishveshwarji from the father of the plaintiff on 1.5.1963 @ Rs. 90/- per month. Apart from the same, they were required to pay the house tax. A Rent Note had been executed in favour of defendants-appellants on 30.04.1963. A release deed was executed by the father of the plaintiff on 19.04.1971 in favour of plaintiff and information thereto was given to the defendant Bhonri Lal Bhagat who expired during the pendency of the suit on 04.02.1988. The said notice was served upon him through registered post intimating that henceforth the defendant would treat the plaintiff as the owner of the shop and continue to pay rent to him. It is stated that upto 30.04.1975, the plaintiff received the rent from the said defendant Bhonri Lal Bhagat (deceased). But thereafter, defendants did not pay the rent or the house tax inspite of demand and a suit was, therefore, filed claiming said rent arrears and for evicting the same. It was also submitted that the plaintiff was engaged in partnership business with other persons and now wanted to start his own business and required it for personal necessity by opening a showroom of jewellery and to manufacture the same. Thereby the plaintiff expressed its bona fide necessity for getting the shop vacated. It was further stated in the plaint that the said Bhonri Lal Bhagat expired on 04.02.1988 and the defendants were not conducting any business by sitting in the shop since 25.07.1985 and the shop was being kept closed. It is further submitted that defendants Nos. 1/1 to 1/7 had never did business with Bhonri Lal Bhagat during his lifetime. It was further stated in the plaint that the said Bhonri Lal Bhagat expired on 04.02.1988 and the defendants were not conducting any business by sitting in the shop since 25.07.1985 and the shop was being kept closed. It is further submitted that defendants Nos. 1/1 to 1/7 had never did business with Bhonri Lal Bhagat during his lifetime. It was also pointed out that Bhonri Lal Bhagat originally taken shop on rent for the purpose of carrying on business of brokerage. However, the nature of business had been changed and now the business of selling vegetable oil and ghee from the premises is going on. Accordingly, it is stated that the condition of shop had depleted. The plaintiff also submitted that if comparative hardship is examined then too, it would be seen that the plaintiff had more requirements than the defendants who had been given a notice on 27.01.1979 and same was confirmed on 31.07.1979 to the said effect. 3. Defendant-appellant No. 1 namely late Shri Bhonri Lal Bhagat filed a written statement denying the contents of the execution of rent agreement dated 30.04.1963 and the condition of payment of house tax. He denied any default having been committed by him. On the other hand, it was stated that the plaintiff had refused to accept the rent from 1.5.1975 and was pressurizing for increasing the rent and, in these circumstances, the plaintiff filed a suit for fixation of standard rent on 21.09.1976 and stated that whatever rent would be fixed by the Court would be acceptable to him. It was further stated by the defendant in his written statement that the nature of business was not mentioned in the rent note and the shop had been taken out on rent for business purpose and, therefore, it was immaterial whether the business of brokerage or any other business was being run. It was stated that the plaintiff had no necessity for the present suit shop and the only requirement of the plaintiff was to increase the rent and had filed the suit for standard rent. 4. After Bhonri Lal Bhagat expired, the plaintiff got his plaint amended and also added additional paras stating that Bhonri Lal Bhagat had died on 04.02.1988 and no business is being carried out thereafter and therefore, the plaintiff wish to recover the arrears of rent as well as compensation in lieu of rent. 5. 4. After Bhonri Lal Bhagat expired, the plaintiff got his plaint amended and also added additional paras stating that Bhonri Lal Bhagat had died on 04.02.1988 and no business is being carried out thereafter and therefore, the plaintiff wish to recover the arrears of rent as well as compensation in lieu of rent. 5. Accordingly, the defendants also amended their written statement and stated that late Bhonri Lal Bhagat in his last Will bequeathed the business in the name of M/s. Bhonri Lal Bhagat as well as the suit shop to appellant No. 1. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: "1. Whether defendants are not defaulters? 2. Whether plaintiff requires the rented premises for his personal and bona fide necessity? 3. Whether in the absence of passing of eviction decree, plaintiff would suffer more hardship in comparison to the defendants? 3A. Whether requirement of the plaintiff will come to an end by partial eviction of the defendants from the suit premises? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the premises vacated from the respondent as per the contents of para No. 7 of the plaintiff? 5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to get the house tax? 6. Whether plaintiff is not entitled to bring the present suit alone other legal heirs are also necessary parties? 7. Whether plaintiff is to entitled to receive the rent in the absence of Succession Certificate? 8. Relief 9. Whether the defendant executed a rent agreement on 30.4.1963 in favour of father of the plaintiff namely Sumer Chand kothari? 10. Whether defendant No. 1/1 to 1/7 were not doing any business from the disputed premises during the life time of the deceased Bhonri Lal and as such tenancy right does not devolve upon them, if yes what will be its effect on the plaintiff? 11. Whether defendant No. 1/5 Brij Bihari was doing business along with Bhonri Lal Ji during his life time and even doing at present and remaining heirs have been unnecessarily made as party, if yes, what will be its effect on the suit? 7. That the plaintiff produced as many as 5 witness in evidence including himself namely PW-1 Sunil chand (plaintiff), PW-2 Ashok Kumar, PW-3 Roop Chand, PW-4 Jeet Mal and PW- 5 Sandeep Kumar. However no documentary evidence was produced by the plaintiff. 7. That the plaintiff produced as many as 5 witness in evidence including himself namely PW-1 Sunil chand (plaintiff), PW-2 Ashok Kumar, PW-3 Roop Chand, PW-4 Jeet Mal and PW- 5 Sandeep Kumar. However no documentary evidence was produced by the plaintiff. On the other hand the appellant No. 1 produced as many as 9 witness including itself in evidence namely DW-1 Brij Bihari (Appellant No. 1), DW-2 Ras Bihari, DW-3 Mohan Lal, DW-4 Madan Lal, DW-5 Mohd. Hanif, DW-6 Mithlesh, DW-7 Raghunath, DW-8 Rambabu, DW-9 Roop Narayan. In documentary evidence as many as 34 documents were produced bearing number Ex.A1 to Ex. A-33 and Ex. A28/1." 8. The appellant during the pendeny of the suit had filed an application under Section 151 on 27.07.2000 regarding placing on record facts with regard to agreement between the plaintiff and appellant No. 1 whereby the plaintiff agreed to sale the suit shop to appellant No. 1. Again draft agreement was sent by appellant No. 1 which was returned after due approval. 9. That the learned trial court after hearing both the parties partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated 16.10.2000. The learned trial court though decided the issue No. 1 regarding default in favour of the plaintiff, however, gave the benefit of first default to the defendants and did not order eviction on the said ground. The trial court further did not allow the plea of change of user of the plaintiff and decided the same against the plaintiff in issue No. 4. The trial court also decided the issue No. 5, 9, 10 and 11 in favour of the defendants. The trial court decreed the suit partially and ordered eviction of the defendants on the ground of bona fide necessity (Issue No. 2) and further decided the issue No. 3 (Comparative hardship), issue No. 3A (Partial eviction), issue No. 6 and 7 in favour of the plaintiff. 10. That aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial court, present appellants preferred Regular First Appeal before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur bearing No. 427/2000 (41/2009) in the month of December, 2000. 11. That during the pendency of the Regular First Appeal the plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell the shop to the defendant-appellant No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 11. That during the pendency of the Regular First Appeal the plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell the shop to the defendant-appellant No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- and in lieu thereof received an amount of Rs. 2,51,000/- as an advance at the first instance and Rs. 21,51,000/- at the second instance as part of the consideration for sale. It is further stated that the document agreement was sought to be brought on record by moving an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC which was allowed on 17.04.2008 and the documents were taken on record subject to clarification that the fact of the said document would be seen at the time of the decision of the appeal. Another application under Order 6, Rule 17 seeking amendment was however dismissed of the appellant. It is stated that appellant No. 1 has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 15.8.2003 which is pending trial. A document dated 29.5.2009 was also sought to be placed on record under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC whereby document application filed by plaintiff for getting one other premises consisting of three rooms and bed rooms evicted was sought to be placed on record. The reasons for eviction for the said premises were stated to be the same i.e. for doing business of stones. Another application was sought to be placed on record showing that the plaintiff had filed a rent application against one Radhe Shyam seeking eviction of Radhe Shyam from one premise on the ground of opening of jewellery shop for his son and thus, the appellant wants to show that there is no bona fide personal necessity for evicting the appellant-defendant. It has been also pointed out that the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint which was dismissed by the learned appellate Court was challenged before the High Court by appellant No. 1 by filling a regular Writ Petition No. 9224/2013 titled as Brij Bihari vs. Sunil Chand Kothati which came to be dismissed on 01.07.2014. The first appellate Court dismissed the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC vide order dated 1.12.2014. The appellants filed another application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC for taking the judgment dated 9.11.2012 on record but their application was dismissed. The first appellate Court dismissed the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC vide order dated 1.12.2014. The appellants filed another application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC for taking the judgment dated 9.11.2012 on record but their application was dismissed. The appellant again moved another application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for bringing on record subsequent events pointing out that the plaintiff had demolished his premises and had raised two storied commercial complex wherein he could start his alleged business. The said application was however, dismissed by the appellate Court. In the circumstances, ultimately the appellate Court on 22.01.2015 dismissed the appeal of the appellant and upheld the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the trial Court dated 16.9.2000. 12. The learned Counsel submits that there are there are as many as 28 questions of law involved in the present second appeal which are sought to be framed and adjudicated in the present second appeal by the appellants. Notices in the appeal were issued. However, questions of law were not framed. When the matter came up for final arguments, it was noticed that for last two years questions of law had not been framed in the second appeal. 13. Having examined the judgment passed by the Apex Court, it reveals that 11 issues have been framed which were considered at length and a finding has been arrived at in favour of the plaintiff resulting in passing of decree of eviction on account of issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 3A having been decided in favour of the plaintiff. Directions for payment of mesne profit for the period three years prior to handing over of the suit premises to the plaintiff were also passed. An amount of Rs. 3240/- plus interest of Rs. 465.50/- and payment of Rs. 90/- per month for the period from 1.9.79 to 30.09.1999 as usages charges and Rs. 188/- per month w.e.f. 1.10.1999 as usages charges. 14. The main question which the learned Counsel for the appellants wants this Court to be framed in the present second appeal is whether the trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit after the plaintiff refused to accept the Legal representatives of Bhonri Lal Bhagat as tenant in his plaint. 188/- per month w.e.f. 1.10.1999 as usages charges. 14. The main question which the learned Counsel for the appellants wants this Court to be framed in the present second appeal is whether the trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit after the plaintiff refused to accept the Legal representatives of Bhonri Lal Bhagat as tenant in his plaint. The second question proposed is with regard to the issue whether the question of bona fide necessity and comparative hardship was to be examined taking into considerations the subsequent events namely availability of let out premises vacated during proceedings, constructions of multi storied building and of having required entire haveli which is having commercial activities. Thirdly, the question has also been sought to be framed with regard to the effect of Agreement to Sale dated 5.8.2003 executed by the land-lord in favour of tenant for sale of subject property and having receiving more than half of the consideration amount could it be said that the plaintiff having a bona fide need. Learned Counsel for the appellants has taken this Court to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sanwarmal Kejriwal vs. Vishva Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Others, AIR 1990 SC 1563 and Udam Singh vs. Ramsingh and Others, (2007) 15 SCC 529. 15. It is to be noticed that the first appellate Court had examined this issue and found that the same has been based only at the appellate stage regarding jurisdiction of the trial Court and has, therefore, rejected the said contention. Admittedly, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have treated the appellant as a tenant and have proceeded with the matter and the plaintiff has also not disputed the said finding. In the circumstances, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent-plaintiff had pressed his stand of the appellants not being tenants after the death of Bhonari Lal Bhagat and, therefore, the aforesaid question which the appellants wants to frame is not substantial question of law in the second appeal. No such question of law of law needs to be framed in the facts of the case. 16. No such question of law of law needs to be framed in the facts of the case. 16. The question relating to subsequent agreement to sell suit property in favour of the defendants, and relating to the authenticity of such an agreement is to be examined in the civil suit which is admittedly pending before the Court regarding specific performance which the appellant is stated to have preferred. In my opinion the factum of any agreement to sell and not proceeding further with such an agreement is an issue which in the present suit is not required to be considered. More so, application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement filed by the appellant had been dismissed and challenge to the order before this High Court had also failed. Thus, the plaintiff had no occasion to contest such averment in the present case and, therefore, question of law so proposed does not have any basis. 17. The question relating to bona fide necessity of the plaintiff does not get diminished merely because he has demolished some other premises and has made two storied commercial complex. One cannot fail to notice that the suit premises are situated where it has already been come on record is the hub of jewellery working. Plaintiff had specifically come out with the case that he wanted premises for the purpose of doing jewellery business. The tenant cannot be said to direct a landlord to do business somewhere else and merely because some other property has come up with the plaintiff having commercial nature, the bona fide personal necessity of the plaintiff cannot be said to have been diminished. Moreover such facts and documents which were sought to be placed on record by the appellant by moving an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC has already been rejected and thus, no question of law arises for adjudication at this stage. Admittedly, the plaintiff wants to open a jewellery showroom in the shop which has been let out to the appellants. Admittedly, the plaintiff wants to open a jewellery showroom in the shop which has been let out to the appellants. The first appellate Court has also examined this aspect and has relied upon law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gaya Prasad vs. Pradeep Shrivastava, AIR 2001 SC 803 , M.L. Prabhakar vs. Rajiv Singal, 2001 (2) SCC 355 , Anil Bajaj vs. Vinod Ahuja, AIR 2014 SC 2294 and Vaneet Jain vs. Jagjit Singh, AIR 2000 SC 2080 . Admittedly the Court has to examine the issue relating to bona fide necessity on the day of filing of the suit. That apart, this Court is satisfied that no pure question of law needs to be examined by this Court from what has been proposed by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 18. In view of the discussion aforementioned, no question of law arises for adjudication in the present second appeal. The instant appeal accordingly is dismissed. 19. The judgment passed by the first appellate Court and the judgment passed by the trial Court are upheld. The respondent-plaintiff shall be free to get the decree executed for eviction.