JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27 th May, 2023 (decree sealed & singed on 08.06.2023) passed by learned Principal District Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2022 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant (tenant) has been dismissed. The judgment in the title suit is dated 10 th June, 2022 (Decree sealed & signed on 16.06.2022) and has been passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Eviction Suit No. 07 of 2014. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted on instructions that the appellant is ready to evict the suit premises within the period of three months from today and deposit the keys of the suit premises in the executing court and the appellant would be satisfied if some observation in this connection is made by this Court. 4. He has also submitted that the appellant/his predecessor in interest has remained tenant in the suit property since 1975. He has also submitted that though the issue was framed on account of default as well as personal necessity but both the courts have decided the point of default against the plaintiff (landlord) and in favour of the defendant (tenant) but on the point of personal necessity the suit has been decreed which has been upheld by the appellate court. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that the connected execution case is Execution Case No. 06 of 2023 in which the objection to the execution has been dismissed vide order dated 12.02.2025 and the decree holder was directed to file writ on the next date. The next date was 24.02.2025. The learned counsel submits that as per his instructions, yesterday, that is on 24.02.2025, the case has been adjourned. 6. The learned counsel has also submitted that the aforesaid submission is being made under the instructions of the appellant who is personally present in the Court. 7. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, this Court finds that there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts with regard to personal necessity of the son of the plaintiff and no substantial question of law as such arises for consideration in the present appeal. 8. 7. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, this Court finds that there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts with regard to personal necessity of the son of the plaintiff and no substantial question of law as such arises for consideration in the present appeal. 8. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted in presence of his client and under his instructions that the appellant is ready to evict the suit premises within the period of three months from today and deposit the keys of the suit premises in the executing court and the appellant would be satisfied if some observation in this connection is made by this Court. 9. In view of the aforesaid undertaking of the appellant, it is sufficient to observe that if the appellant makes a prayer before the learned executing court to grant him three months’ time to evict the suit premises and submit the keys before the Executing Court latest by 25 th May, 2025, the prayer be considered in accordance with law and after granting an opportunity to the decree holder. 10. This second appeal is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation. 11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. 12. Let this order be immediately communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.