Dwarka Prasad, J. - (1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent, filed on the ground of reasonable and bona fide personal necessity of the landlord. Both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the personal necessity of Chhaganlal has been established on the basis of the evidence on record.
(2.) During the pendency of this appeal the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, which was subsequently replaced by the amending Act No. 14 of 1976. Subsection (2), inserted in section 14 by the new amendment, runs as under : "(2) No decree for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (h) of sub-section (1) of section 13 shall be passed if the court is satisfied that having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the question whether other reasonable accommodation is available to the landlord or the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. Where the court is satisfied that no hardship would be caused either to the tenant or to the landlord by passing the decree in respect of a part of the premises, the court shall pass the decree in respect of such part only."
(3.) As no decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide personal necessity of the landlord for the suit premises can now be passed by this Court unless the question of comparative hardship is also decided in favour of the landlord, it is necessary that an additional issue be framed on the question of comparative hardship and should be remitted to the trial court. I, therefore, frame the following additional issue : "Whether having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including that any other reasonable accommodation is available to the landlord or to the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it -;