NAROTTAM LAL Vs. MUKAT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal under Section 100, CPC read with Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, against the judgment and decree dated 3.7.1978 passed the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Bharatpur.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant-appellant with respect to a shop situated in Mandi Bazar, Kama. It was contended by the appellant that the shop in question has been on rent with him for the last 40 years at the rate of Rs. 6/- p.m. The plaintiff's suit was decreed by Munsiff on 8.12.1973. The defendant went up in appeal, which was heard by the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Bharatpur. During the pendency of the appeal, the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 was amended and consequently the appellate Court framed an issue with regard to comparative hardship and remanded the case to the Munsiff vide his judgment dated 26.11.1976. On remand, additional evidence was led by both the parties. The issue of comparative hardship was, however, decided in favour of the plaintiff by the Munsiff on 11.4.1977. The Munsiff had recorded a finding that the financial condition of the plaintiff was much better than that of the defendant. The defendant filed objections against the finding dated 11.4.1977 before the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Bharatpur. The appeal was, however, dismissed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Bharatpur on 3.7.1979. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Bharatpur, this second appeal has been filed.

(3.) The defendant has contended that he had led cogent evidence to prove that he would suffer greater hardship than the plaintiff, if the decree of eviction is passed against him, yet the Courts below have wrongly decided against the evidence on record that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff if the decree of eviction is not passed against the defendant. It was also contended that the plaintiff is financially very well off and he can procure some other suitable accommodation. On the other hand, the defendant is a poor person and is earning his livelihood from the business he is doing in the shop for the last 40 years.