KARAM CHAND Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by the defendant-petitioner (for short "the defendant") challenging the order dated 6. 12. 1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Regular Appeal No. 5/99 whereby, the said court had disallowed the relief sought for by the defendant by way of an application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement filed by him in the said suit.

(2.) THE facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties briefly stated are that plaintiff-respondent (for short "the plaintiff") filed a suit against the defendant seeking eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the suit premises for running business by his son. As regards partial eviction, the plaintiff pleaded that his need for the suit premises could not be satisfied by partial eviction. THE suit was contested by the defendant denying the averments made in the suit as regards plaintiff's need for the suit premises. THE learned trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment & decree dated 14. 12. 1998 in favour of the plaintiff as regards the reasonable and bonafide necessity. On Issue No. 3 regarding partial eviction, the trial Court while deciding the same in favour of the plaintiff held that the said issue did not require any consideration or examination for the reason that the plaintiff deposed that his need could not be satisfied by partial eviction and that the same was the case of the defendant.

(3.) THE aims and object of the legislative mandate in inserting Section 14 (2) in the Act of 1950 are that it is the primary duty of the court to apply the doctrine of comparative hardship in every case of eviction on the basis of bonafide and reasonable requirement of the landlord before the decree of eviction is passed in favour of the landlord on the said ground. THE bonafide need has to be objectively considered by taking into consideration the comparative hardship of the respective parties to the case i. e. both the landlord and the tenant and; (a) the court has to be satisfied as to whose hardship would be greater by passing a decree of eviction i. e. landlord or the tenant in respect of a part of premises and b) whether the suit premises in question is divisible in nature so as not to result in material hardship to a party who can be easily accommodated in the part of the premises notwithstanding the decree. Though, there is no definite guideline in this regard for judging or assessing the comparative hardship of any party, the hardship of both the parties is to be compared in weighing the evidence in every case by the court. It is the satisfaction of the court which is subjective or objective assessment of the material on record on appraisal of facts and circumstances of each particular case. It is settled position established by precedents and hence the court is free to record a finding of fact on this aspect after examining the comparative hardship of the parties on assumption of facts to be considered objectively on the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties.