JUDGMENT
Milap Chandra Jain, J.
1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant tenant against the judgment of the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Udaipur dated May 8, 1991 by which he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the learned Munsif, Udaipur City (North) dated September 29, 1986, decreeing the suit for ejectment of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity.
2. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned lower appellate court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the same has been mis-read. This is not correct. No particular portion of the evidence was pointed out to show that it was mis-read or was not properly appreciated. After thorough discussion of the evidence on record, the learned appellate court has come to a concurrent finding of fact that the suit premises is resonably and bona fide required by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Manoharlal for the purpose of his residence. On the basis of evidence on record, it has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff Manoharlal does not own any other building at Udaipur for his residence, he is now married, building in which the families of his father Kishan Chand and uncle Kanhaiyalal are residing has not sufficient accommodation and he requires the suit premises for his residence. Admittedly, the defendant-appellant has not filed any document so far to show that the plaintiff Manoharlal has acquired any other building at Udaipur for his residence. The purchases of a big building by the father, mother, uncle and aunt and a house by aunt Raj Kumari are of no material consequence. He cannot compel them told him out or otherwise give its possession. In any view of the matter, the pricurrent finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court cannot be said to be contrary to law or perverse.
3. The learned lower courts have rightly held that the plaintiff Manoharlal would suffer greater hardship if the suit premises is not vacated by the defendant appellant. It is well proved from the evidence on record that the defendant-appellant carries on tailoring business in a shop measuring 25′ x 10′ situated in the ground floor, the suit premises is situated on the first floor above it wherein his few tailors sit and work and during the pendency of the case the defendant-appellant acquired vacant possession of his two shops and they were let out. Both the lower courts have rightly held that the plaintiff would suffer greater hardship if the suit is not decreed. This is again a finding of fact.
4. It is correct that no issue was framed on the partial eviction of the suit premises. It is the admitted case of the parties that the suit premises consists of one room and one varandah with bath-room and latrine. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the suit premises has more than one approach. There can be no question of partial eviction of such a premises. The plaintiff Mohanlal would not be able to reside in it with his family if any part of it remains with the defendant. His tailors would not also be able to use it when the plaintiff resides there along with his family.
5. It has been held in State of U.P. v. Ram Chandra that a second appeal is not entertainable on the ground of erroneous finding of fact however gross the error might seem to be. Reference of Mithulal v. Radheylal , Bhairab Chdndra Nandan v. Ranadhir Chandra Dutta and Pal Singh v. Surendra Singh A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 759 may be made here. Thus there is no force in the second appeal.
6. Consequently, the second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
7. The defendant-appellant is given time upto December 31, 1991 to vacate the suit premises and to deliver its actual and physical possession to the plaintiff-respondents if within two months from today he remits by Money Order the entire amount of rent and mesne profits upto December 31, 1991 and costs of the lower courts after inspiring the amounts a bearlt paid to and furnishes an undertaking in writing before the Munsif, Udaipur City (North) that during this period he would not part with the possession of the suit premises and will deliver its actual and physical possession before or by December 31, 1991 to the plaintiff-respondents.