ANANDI LAL Vs. SARJU DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal in a suit for eviction of shop on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff decreed by both the learned court below. Of course the suit was also filed on the ground of default but then the defendant was given benefit of Sec. 13 (6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter after referred to as "the Act" ). Hence, I need not refer to facts.

(2.) A perusal of the judgments and decree shows that the question of reasonable and bonafide necessity and comparative hardship is covered by issues no. 2, 2a and 3 which was decided by the learned courts below against the defendant. In the pleading no indication was even given from either side as to "whether no hardship would be caused either to the tenant or the landlord by passing a decree in respect of a part of the premises only", (such expression shall hereinafter referred to as "partial eviction" ). Not only this even during evidence nothing was said on this aspect, so much so no such evidence has been led which may even have the effect of providing sufficient indication to the court as to whether no hardship would be caused either to the tenant or to the landlord by passing a decree in respect of a part of the premises only. Likewise even during the course of arguments before both the learned courts below no submission were made on the side of either parties on this question. Obviously therefore rightly or wrongly both the learned courts below did not record any finding on this question.

(3.) BEFORE me, on 8. 8. 2000 the learned counsel for the appellant filed an application u/s. 100 (5) C. P. C. and Sec. 151 C. P. C. seeking to urge that apart from the question framed, other questions formulated in the memo of appeal do also arise in the present appeal, therefore, they should also be framed and decided.