RAMESHWAR LAL Vs. RAGHUNATH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This tenants appeal is directed against concurrent Endings of the three courts below that the need of landlord was bona fide in proceedings, arising out of the suit for ejectment filed under Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.

(2.) Since the finding is based on consideration of evidence it is a finding of fact which could not have been challenged in second appeal much less in this Court. But various submissions were made to assail the judgment some of which were either not raised or given up at one stage or another in courts below. For instance, it was urged that in 1976 the Act was amended and in suits for eviction under Rent Control Act requirement of comparative hardship was also added, yet the High Court committed an error of law in not setting aside the orders of courts below and directing the landlord to amend his pleadings and afford opportunity to appellant prove that mandatory requirement of hardship was notsatisfied. Legal position that the suit could not have been decided without finding of hardship cannot be disputed. But factually the appellant filed an application for amendment of his written statement before first appellate court as the amendment had come during pendency of first appeal but it was rejected presumably because evidence of hardship was already on record. And the appellate court found it as a fact on appreciation of evidence that the respondent having no other shop and having been ejected from the shop in which he was carrying on business would suffer hardship as appellants were carrying on business in another shop. The evidence was already there and it was examined but the amendment was sought as a pretext to get the decree for eviction set aside. Not only that the futility of the point being well apparent it was not pressed before the High court yet it was argued in this court as out of thirty grounds 'raised in memorandum of appeal in the High court it was one.

(3.) Similarly the question of pecuniary jurisdiction and valuation was argued irrespective of that it was neither raised in the first appellate court nor even in second appeal because the trial court had rightly rejected the objection since it was a suit for ejectment of tenant and arrears of rent.