GANGA RAM Vs. GURKIRTAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this second appeal are that the appellant was a tenant of the respondent who filed a suit for ejectment for conversion of the shop into a living room for her personal use. THE learned Munsif dismissed the suit so far as the eviction was concerned. One of the issues framed by him was whether by passing a decree of eviction any hardship will be caused to the parties and in what manner and whether the hardship to the defendant will be greater to the defendant in comparison to the plaintiff.

(2.) THE learned Munsif was of the view that hardship will be greater to the defendant than to the plaintiff. Upon appeal, the learned Civil Judge found that the defendant had a three storied house of hi3 own comprising of 9 rooms, out of which some are in his occupation. He runs a tea-stall in the shop outside Navrang Hotel and his case that he runs a washerman's business in the disputed premises was not believed. THE defendant had stated that he was an employee in the lea stall but also looks after his dry cleaning shop. THE learned Civil Judge found it difficult to believe that the appellant manages both his service and his parental profession of drycleaning. THE learned Civil Judge, therefore, set aside the order of the court below and decree the plaintiff's suit for eviction.