VISHVAPRIYA NAGAR Vs. IMMAMUDDIN TAILOR MASTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11th October, 1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur arising out of Civil Regular Appeal No. 81/92 whereby the learned appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.5.92 passed by the trial Court and remanded the case back to the trial Court.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of the arrears of rent against the respondent-defendant on 18.4.74. It was inter alia averred by the plaintiff in the suit that the Plot No. 52 is in his ownership and on the southern side of the said plot there are two shops and residential portion. Out of the two shops one shop was let out to the defendant-respondent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month and a rent-note was duly executed by him. The tenant defaulted in payment of rent for a period of 9 months consecutively before institution of the suit. It was further contended by the plaintiff that he is a practicing lawyer and the maximum professional work he is getting from Jaipur and that he needs the disputed shop for opening the office for his legal profession and as such the plaintiff has reasonable and bona fide necessity of the promises in question. The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') was amended in the year 1975 after filing the suit and consequently the appellant also took the plea of comparative hardship to the effect that in the event of a decree for eviction not being passed in his favour on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity, greater hardship would result to him.

(3.) THE respondent preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court vide CFA No. 75/85 along with an application under order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The appeal was allowed and the appellate court remanded the matter back to the trial court for allowing the defendant to lead evidence on the question of partial eviction.