RAGHUNATH AND MUNIR Vs. JAMALUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil second appeal of a tenant-defendant against whom the suit for eviction has been decreed by the appellate court. The decree has been passed on the basis of the finding in favour of the paintiffs-landlord that the necessity of suit premises of the plaintiffs is both reasonable and bonafide.

(2.) AFTER the amendment introduced in S. 13, of the Rajasthan Premises (Control Of Rent & Eviction) Act, (for brevity, the Act'), the requirement of comparative hardship of the plaintiff and the defendant needs examination. An issue was, therefore, framed and it was remitted to the lower court for recording of the evidence and giving a finding.

(3.) NOW, So far as the question of bonafide and reasonable personal necessity is concerned, Shri Tikku has rightly pointed out that the concurrent finding of two courts on the point cannot be assailed to the facts. So far as the finding of comparative hardship is concerned, now the lower court has held that the plaintiffs have not produced any evidence to show that the defendants would get any shop near about the premises where, they are doing business of flour mill. Shri Tikku has stated that in Katla Bazar, no such premises would be available.