ISHWARI LAL Vs. HIRA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS is a second appeal in suit, which was filed in the year 1976 before the trial court for getting the possession of the rented premises on the ground of personal bona fide necessity. Almost 27 years have passed, yet the plaintiff is to get the relief in this case despite the fact that personal bona fide need of the plaintiff proved by the plaintiff more than 23 years ago when this court allowed the plaintiff's second appeal and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was decreed. The reason for delay in getting the actual relief is that, due to change in law the court was required to examine question of comparative hardship before passing decree for eviction on the ground of personal bona fide need of the plaintiff and further to find out whether need of the plaintiff will be satisfied in case decree for the part of premises is granted in favour of the plaintiff. The issue of comparative hardship decided in favour of the plaintiff. Only point raised in this appeal is about the issue, whether plaintiff's need is for the part of the premises or plaintiff's need, needs whole of the premises. This second appeal is pending for determination of this point (which is no point in fact in the light of the stand taken by the appellant-defendant in this appeal). After about 21 years of filing appeal, this court is deciding a short question. Total period of original trial 2 years, in first appeal 6 months and further two years in trial after remand. Time taken in trial is four years six months. Time taken by the High Court is about 22 years.

(3.) INTERESTINGLY , the appellant is tenant, who got the relief to remain in possession of the part of the property, preferred this second appeal and in memo of appeal submitted that in case, division is carried out of the premises then neither of the parties can enjoy its apartments nor there will be any liberty, freedom and privacy to the parties. The respondent-landlord also challenging the division of the premises, hence, submitted cross-objection in this appeal on 27th May, 1982 challenging the finding of the First Appellate Court by which the plaintiff was allowed only part of the premises instead of decree for entire premises.