SEEMA SANDESH AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. GIAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. directed against the judgment and decree dated January 27, 1981 of the Additional District Judge, Sriganganagar by which he affirmed the judgment and decree dated July 25, 1979 of the Civil Judge Sriganganagar by which he affirmed the judgment and decree dated July 25, 1979 of the Civil Judge, Sriganganagar in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. It is not necessary to state the facts in detail. Suffice to mention that the plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit against the defendants-tenants for ejectment in respect of the premises (Eastern half portion of shop No. 62 situate on Kotwali Road, Sriganganagar) described in para No. 1 of the plaintiff, inter alia, on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. The learned Civil Judge framed the necessary issues arising out the pleadings of the parties and recorded the evidence. By his judgment dated 25.7.1979, the learned Civil Judge decided issue Nos. 1 and 7 relating to reasonable and bonafide necessity and comparative hardship in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and decreed the suit for ejectment. The defendants preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Sriganganagar, by his judgment and decree dated January 27, 1981, confirmed the findings on issue Nos. 1 and 7 and maintained the decree for ejectment. Hence, this appeal by the defendants as aforesaid.

(2.) Learned counsel for the parties state that the appeal may be finally heard and disposed of. I have heard Mr. L.R. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. H.C. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The only contention raised by the learned counsel of the appellants is that the learned Civil Judge as well as the learned Additional District Judge have failed to record a finding as contemplated in the second para of Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII of 1950), (for short 'the Act' hereafter) Second para of Section 14(2) of the Act provides that where the Court is satisfied that if no hardship would be caused either to the tenant or to the landlord by passing the decree in respect of a part of the premises, the Court shall pass the decree in respect of such part only. According to Mr. Mehta learned counsel for the appellants, this is mandatory. In this connection, he placed reliance on Rahman v. Ram Chand, 1978 AIR(SC) 413. and Arun Kumar v. Md. Basir Ahmad, 1981 AIR(Pat) 230 and Krishana Das Nandy v. Bidhan Chandra Roy, 1959 AIR(Cal) 181.