- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents for eviction of the appellant/tenant vide judgment and decree dated 2.9.2004. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiffs. Appeal against the said judgment and decree preferred by the appellant/defendant was dismissed by the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 22.10.2005.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant tried to assail the concurrent findings of fact but I do not find any reason to interfere in the same which have been arrived at after due consideration of all evidence and after appreciation of facts. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the appellant may be given two years' time to vacate the suit shop as he is an old tenant and is running a small restaurant and has very meager resources and if he will have to vacate the suit premises without any other alternate accommodation, he may suffer huge losses because the amount may be short but the appellant would suffer irreparably.;