KANTILAL Vs. DHULJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's second appeal in a suit for eviction and arrears of rent. The plaintiff-respondent sought eviction of the defendant tenant from the shop in dispute on the ground that he require the shop reasonably and bonafide for his own business. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that he requires the suit shop for his personal use. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act was amended by Ordinance No. 26 of 1975. This Ordinance was later on adopted by the State Legislature and it is now in the form of the Act of 1976. According to Section 14 of the Amended Act the plaintiff was further required to prove that the landlord would be put to greater hardship than the tenant if no decree for eviction was passed. This Court therefore, framed an additional issue and remitted the same for decision to the lower appellant Court. After recording evidence of the parties, the lower appellate Court has found that having regard to all the circumstances of the case greater hardship would be caused to the landlord than to the tenant if no decree for eviction was passed. This finding is mainly based on two grounds. Firstly, that the tenant has taken on rent another shop for carrying on his business and secondly, that the tenant is using the dispute shop only for the purpose of go down. It has been pointed out that the tenant can get suitable accommodation for godown at any other place. So far as the plaintiff-landlord is concerned, he is a retired Government servant and soon after the retirement he accepted service but his master expired and the mater's son was not in a position to keep him in service. The plaintiff, therefore, thought it proper to start his own business in the disputed shop. Since both the Courts have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff required the shop reasonably and bonafide for his own use and further that if no decree for eviction is passed the plaintiff landlord will suffer greater hardship than the tenant, I see no ground to interfere with this finding of fact.

(2.) The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs.

(3.) The learned counsel for the defendant tenant prays that his client may be given some time to vacate the shop in dispute. the learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if time is granted upto 31st of December, 1977.