SHAUKAT Vs. DEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil miscellaneous appeal by the plaintiffs against order of remand passed by the learned, Additional District Judge, Ajmer, dated March 27, 1975 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 115 of 1974/179 of 1975.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for eviction of the defendant respondent from their shop fully described in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint, on the ground that the plaintiffs required the premises reasonably and bonafide for their own use. The defendants contested the suit and denied that the demised premises were required reasonably and bonafide by the plaintiff-landlords. The trial court, after evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-landlords required the shop reasonably and bonafide for their own use. It accordingly decreed the suit. The defendants then preferred an appeal against the decree passed by the trial court.

(3.) During the pendency of the appeal, the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, was amended by the Amending Act of 1976 and section 14(2) of the Amending Act made it obligatory for the court to judge comparative hardship before passing a decree for eviction. The appellate court, therefore, held that the decree for eviction cannot be allowed to remain intact unless the question of comparative hardship, as envisaged by section 14(2) of the Amending Act, has been gone into. The learned Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the court below and remanded the case to the trial court with the direction that it shall allow the parties to a amend their pleadings in view of section 14(2) of the Amending Act of 1976, if they so desire. It was further directed that the trial court shall frame an issue afresh in the light of section 14(2) of the Amending Act for determining comparative hardship, after allowing the parties to lead evidence an the newly framed issue. The appellate court also directed that after recording evidence on the newly framed issue, it shall decide the suit afresh. It is against this order of remand that the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal before this Court