SATWANT KAUR Vs. DHUND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is directed against a judgment dated September 22, 1980 of Rajasthan High Court by which the plaintifflandlady who had filed a suit for a decree of eviction of the entire premises in possession of the tenant-respondent was given only a marginal relief by granting a decree for partial eviction. The cases of the parties have been fully detailed in the judgments of the High Court and that of the trial court.

(2.) The High Court has approached all the aspects and shades of the question very thoroughly and in a very well reasoned judgment come to the conclusion that the plaintiff-landlady has not been able to prove the case of complete eviction of the tenantrespondent from the premises.

(3.) In the view that we take in the case it is not necessary for us to dilate further on the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the admitted position is that the plaintifflandlady requires the shop in question for personal necessity, viz., to settle her son Trilochan Singh for starting motor battery business in the disputed premises. The plaintiff-appellant alleged that no hardship will be caused to the tenant-respondent because he is doing tent business and has got sufficient accommodation in other places besides the shop in question. The High Court after examining the arguments of the parties came to the conclusion that having regard to the nature of the business of Trilochan Singh it was wholly unnecessary to evict the defendantrespondent from the entire premises and passed a decree for partial eviction of the respondent from the disputed shop measuring 14' x 14' which is already separated by a pucca wall.