BHIKAM CHAND Vs. TARA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, ajmer dated 14th January, 1976, whereby the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Beawar dated 19th March, 1974 were set aside.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that Tara Chand and Om Prakash filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against Bhikam Chand and M/s. Bhikam Chand and Sons, Beawar. The eviction was sought on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit premises by the plaintiffs and on the ground of default. The learned trial Court decided the issue regarding reasonable and bona fide need of the suit premises against the plaintiffs. It was also held that the defendants have not committed any default. The suit for eviction was therefore, dismissed. The plaintiffs feeling aggrieved filed an appeal which was decided by the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer on 14th January, 1'976. The judgment and decree of the learned trial Court were set aside and the case was remanded to the trial Court with the direction that an additional issue may be framed keeping in view the amendment in section 14 (2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, made by the Ordinance of 1975, whereby the question of comparative hardship had to be investigated and decided. It is against this judgment of the learned civil Judge, Ajmer that the present appeal has been directed before this Court.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the defendants-appellants that the learned lower appellate Court erred in law in setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. It was contended that the learned lower appellate Court ought to have framed an issue on the question of comparative hardship and should have remitted the case only for a finding on that additional issue. It was also contended that after the finding on the additional issue had been received from the learned trial Court, the lower appellate Court ought to have decided the entire appeal on merit. It was further contended that in the present case, the learned lower appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court without examining the merits of the various issues decided by the learned trial Court and without setting aside the findings on the various issues. It was, therefore, contended that the learned lower appellate Court has committed a grave illegality in law in setting aside the judgment and decrea of the learned trial Court.