V.G.PALSHIKAR, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) THE original suit was filed by the plaintiff-landlord claiming eviction of the tenant and possession of the rented premises on the ground of bonafide use of those premises for personal use of the landlord and his son. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Appeal under Section 96 of the Civil C.P.C. by the unsuccessful defendant was dismissed by the appellate Court. Hence, this second appeal. The suit as filed by the plaintiff was based on the allegation that the plaintiff needed the rented premises for the bonafide use of himself and his son and, for that purpose, it is necessary that the tenant is evicted from the premises. This allegation of the landlord was denied by the tenant, who claimed that the need is not genuine and prayed for dismissal of the suit as aforesaid. The learned trial Judge has arrived at finding in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The appellate Court maintained the finding. Thus, decree based on concurrent finding of fact is under challenge in this appeal.
(3.) WHEN the matter came up for admission before this Court, the appeal was admitted on the following questions of law :- "1. Whether when the plaintiff's case itself was that after the shop is vacated, he will include in it the other portion in which cycle business is being done and divide in two parts, in one he will run his cycle business and in the other photo studio, then whether with the finding of the learned trial Court and appellate Court that the need for cycle business has come to an end as a result of the death of the plaintiff, then whether the finding of the Court that hardship would be caused to the plaintiff in case the shop is not vacated, can be sustained ? 2. Whether under the proviso of sub-section (2) of 14 of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act in case there is only one shop and the Court comes to a finding that the need of the plaintiff is only of half portion of the shop, then whether the Court can grant a decree for eviction for the entire shop or should grant a decree for eviction for only the part of the shop ? 3. Whether the burden of proof on the issue of comparative hardship having been wrongly placed on the tenant, the finding of fact arrived at on that count is bad in law and as such vitiated ?" ;