S.K.MAL LODHA,J. - (1.)THE unsuccessful landlord (plaintiff) has filed this appeal under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated October 26, 1983, of the Additional District Judge, Nohar, by which he confirmed the judgment and decree regarding dismissal of the suit vide judgment dated May 5, 1982 of Munsiff, Bhadra.
(2.)IT is not necessary to recount the facts in detail for the reason that in this appeal, the only point involved is whether the learned additional District Judge, Nohar, was right in maintaining the finding of the Munsiff regarding issue No. 6 which relates to the comparative hardship as envisaged by Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII of 1950) for short 'the Act' hereinafter).
The plaintiff instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. Ejectment was inter alia sought on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. The suit was contested by the defendant on various grounds. The Munsiff framed necessary issues. Issue Nos. 4 and 5 relate to the reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant even on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. Issue No. 6 is as follows :-

This relates to the comparative hardship. The learned Munsif held that the plaintiff has been successful in establishing reasonable and bonafide necessity. He, however, decided issue No. 6 holding that the plaintiff (sic) if the decree for ejectment is passed in favour of the plaintiff went in appeal and the learned District Judge maintained that finding. The plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

(3.)IN the memo of appeal, the following two substantial questions of law have been stated :-
"(a) Whether the finding of the Court below on issue No. 6 is vitiated on account of being based on misreading of evidence and misconception of law and bad ? (b) Whether the Courts below were right in the facts and circumstances of the case in holding that the respondents would suffer greater hardship in the event of suit being decreed than that would be suffered by the appellant in the event of appeal being dismissed ? The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the finding of comparative hardship is vitiated as the statements of P.W. 1 Chabil Dass (Plaintiff) and P.W. 2 Nathuram (Plaintiff's son), D.W. 1 Chabil Dass (defendant) and D.W. 2 Gajanand misread and unwarranted inference have been drawn form their testimony. He also submitted that the learned Additional District Judge misdirected himself in arriving at the conclusion to which he did in view of Section 14(2) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment under appeal relating to issue No. 6 for the reasons mentioned by the learned Additional District Judge and controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant in support of the appeal.