CHAGAN LAL Vs. BEENA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The battle between the landlord and the tenant has brought the parties before this court. The appellantthe tenant in this caseis challenging the order dtd. 6/2/2003, passed by the District Judge, Dausa whereby the learned Judge has, after framing an issue under Order 41, Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Code, (the Code, for short), remanded the case to the learned trial court for deciding the issue within six months.

(2.) In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 1/1/1973, the appellant had rented out a shop, measuring 20 x 12 from the respondents (the landlord, for short) for a monthly rent of Rs.90.00. Subsequently, the rent was increased to Rs.120.00 per month from 1/1/1975. Later on, the landlord filed a suit for eviction against the appellant on the ground of bona fide necessity and on default of payment of rent. The appellant filed his written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. According to the appellant, the landlord had about twenty shops which were rented out. The landlord was litigating with the other tenants also in order to pressurise them to increase the rent. There was no bona fide necessity on the part of the landlord for the shop in question. After going through the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed four issues as under:

(3.) After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial court held that there was no bona fide necessity of the landlord and the factor of comparative hardship was also in favor of the tenant. Therefore, vide order dtd. 26/10/1993, the learned trial court dismissed the suit. Since the order dtd. 26/10/1993 aggrieved the landlord, they filed an appeal before the learned Judge. Vide order dated 6/2/3 the learned Judge remanded the case back to the learned trial court after framing the issue whether the bonafide necessity of the landlord can be fulfilled by the partial eviction of the tenant or not ? The learned Judge directed the trial court to decide the said issue within a period of six months from the date of the order. Since the appellant is aggrieved by the said order, he has submitted the present appeal before this court.