RATILAL MOTIRAM Vs. NATHUBHAI JETHABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) * * * *

(2.) THE next question that arises is as regards the resultant hardship. THE trial Court has recorded a clear finding that greater hardship would be caused to the landlord by refusing a decree for eviction. THE finding recorded by the lower Appellate Court to the contrary is vitiated on account of the erroneous interpretation placed by it on the stipulation contained in the partition deed. This Court is therefore obliged to record its own finding on this all important and crucial issue. Before I tackle that problem I must resolve a question of principle. When the hardship is equal on both sides contends learned Counsel for the petitioner the landlord must without anything more succeed in as much as the factum of his ownership must tilt the balance in his favour relying on a passing remark in Taherbhai Hebtullabhai and another v. Ambalal Harilal Shah and another (VII G.L.R. 981). Now sub-sec. (2) of sec. 13 of the Rent Act in so far as it is material reads thus:-