S. K. Mal Lodha, J. - (1.) Heard, Mr. N. N. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The learned Civil Judge has found that the appellants have committed default in payment of rent month by month after February 24, 1969 and, therefore, they have rendered themselves liable to eviction under section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The finding that the appellants are defaulters in payment of rent is not vitiated on any ground whatsoever. The learned Munsif, Udaipur found that the plaintiffs require the plot in question reasonably and bona fide. So far as the question of comparative hardship is concerned, he was of opinion that Mohanlal (Plaintiff No. 1) will be put to the greater hardship, if the decree for ejectment in respect of the plot in question, which belonged to him is not passed. As regards Surendra Singh and Jogindrasingh (plaintiffs No. 2 and 3) are concerned, he decided the point of comparative hardship against them. It may be mentioned that in this case, Mohanlal (P. W. 1) (plaintiff No. 1), Jogindrasingh (P. W. 2) (plaintiff No. 3) and Surendra Singh (P W. 3) (plaintiff No. 2) were examined in support of the plaintiffs case and Kana @ Kishanlal (defendant No. 1) examined himself as D. W. 1. No other evidence was led by the parties. The learned Civil Judge, on the question of comparative hardship observed that the statements of Jogendrasingh (P. W. 2) and Surendra Singh (P. W. 3) are more reliable than the statement of Kishanlal (D W. 1). He, therefore, recorded a finding that the plaintiffs, Jogendrasingh and Surendra Singh, would be put to greater hardship than the defendant Kishanlal, if the decree for ejectment is not passed and decided the point of comparative hardship as required by section 14(2) of the Act in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. In this regard, he reversed the finding of the learned Munsif. The finding of comparative hardship as it is based on appreciation of the evidence of the parties is primarily a finding of fact. I am not satisfied that this finding is vitiated either on account of any error of law or substantial error of procedure. In my opinion, the findings that the defendants have committed default in payment of rent and that the plaintiffs, Jogindrasingh and Surendra Singh would be put to greater hardship than the defendant Kishanlal, if the decree for ejectment is not passed in favour of the plaintiffs, do not call for interference in this appeal. It may be mentioned that so far as the questions of reasonable and bona fide necessity and comparative hardship in respect of Mohanlal (plaintiff No. 1) are concerned, they were decided by the learned Munsif in his favour and against the defendant and that they are not subject-matter of challenge before me in this appeal. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law.
(3.) The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed summarily.;