NARSINGH DASS Vs. JETH MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for ejectment against THE defendant-petitioner on THE ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity in respect of a shop measuring 6' x 4' situated at Nagaur. The defendant resisted it. After recording THE evidence of THE parties, it was decreed. The defendant filed Appeal No. 8 of 1981 in THE court of THE Additional District Judge, Nagaur. Subsequently, an application was moved by him before THE learned Additional District Judge that an issue regarding partial eviction be framed as provided in THE proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of THE Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called 'THE Act') and be remitted to THE learned trial Court for recording its finding THEreon. The plaintiff seriously opposed it. After hearing THE parties, THE learned Additional District Judge dismissed THE application by his order under revision.

(2.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the learned Additional District Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him in rejecting the application, the said proviso mandates the court to consider the question of partial eviction and the learned lower appellate court committed a material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in observing that partial eviction is not possible. He also contended that the learned appellate Court has relied upon the decision of this Court dated May 12, 1987 given in Ramchandra v. Ramgopal which has subsequently been reviewed by the same Hon'ble Judge. He lastly contended that the partial eviction of the suit shop is possible as it is open from two sides. He relied upon Rahman v. Ram Chand (1), Radha Kishan v. Naraindas (2); Seema Sandesh v. Smt. Gian Kaur (3), Bhagwansingh v. Achalsingh (4); Abdul Hafiz Khan v. Jethu Ram (5) and Anand Prakash v. Abdul Kayoom (6 ).

(3.) IT has been observed in Harnam Das v. Sanwal Ram, (supra) as follows:- "5. IT may be pointed out that no argument was advanced in either of the two courts below on the aforesaid question nor any plea was taken on behalf of the defendants that the reasonable requirement of the plaintiff would be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenants from only a part of the premises. Neither any issue was framed nor any evidence was led on this question by the defendants. Moreover, any such question of partial eviction could not have been raised in the present case as the subject-matter of the suit is only a single shop. The decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Rahman Jeo Wangnoo's case (supra) can only be applicable where there are number of apartments in the rented premises in question and where the reasonable requirement of the landlord may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from only some of them, thus eviction from only a part of the premises would have been enough. In those circumstances, the mandate of the law requires the decision of the question of partial eviction because the requirement of the landlord may be satisfied if only a few of the apartments are vacated by the tenant and are handed over to the landlord. But when the rented premises consists of a single shop or a single room or apartments, the question of partial eviction cannot arise, as either the tenant could not evicted from that shop or room or he could not be evicted therefrom and it is not possible to evict him from a part of the shop or room, when the subject-matter of tenancy is one single shop or a single apartment. In my humble view, the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court is not applicable to the case of a single shop or a single apartment, like the present case, No other point was argued before me. "