S.K.MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is defendant -tenant's second appeal under Section 100, CPC against the judgment and decree dated May 2,1970 of the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur by which he set aside the judgment and decree dated November 4, 1967 of the Additional Munsif No. 1, Jodhpur City and decreed the suit for ejectment which was dismissed by the learned Additional Munsif.
(2.) A few facts may be noticed : The plaintiff -respondeut instituted a suit for ejectment from the house which was rented out to the defendant -appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 34/ -. It was stated by the plaintiff that the house in question is reasonably and bonafide required by him for use and occupation for himself and his family. It was also pleaded that the house, where he is living, belongs to his deceased brother Chhaganlal and that Smt. Kamala, the only daughter, of Chhaganlal has given him a notice to vacate it. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given to the defendant terminating his tenancy from the midnight of 6th and 7th May, 1966. The plaintiff has prayed that a decree against the defendant may be granted for his ejectment. The defendant in his written statement, inter alia, denied the reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff and his family. Issue relating to reasonable and bonafide necessity was framed on August 24, 1966. Parties led evidence. The learned Additional Munsif after appreciating the evidence recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of issue No. 1 relating to reasonable and bonafide necessity. He also held that it has not been proved from the evidence that the plaintiff requires the suit house reasonably and bonafide for use and occupation for himself and his family. In view of the findings recorded by him, he dismissed suit for ejectment. An appeal was filed by the plaintiff and the learned Additional Civil Judge reversed the finding on the question of reasonble and bonafide necessity and decreed the suit for ejectment and also awarded damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 34/ - per month from the date of the suit until eviction. The defendant filed this appeal challenging the decree for ejectment on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the appeal, this Court, by its order dated January 6, 1981, because of the amendment of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII of 1950) (for short 'the Act'), framed the following Additional issue under Order XLT, Rule 25, CPC: 1(A) Whether having regard to all the circumstances of the case hardship would be caused by passing a decree than by refusting to pass it? This issue was remitted for trial to the Additional Munsif No. 1, Jodhpur City. The learned Additional Munsif by his order dated April 21, 1981 has decided this issue against the plaintiff and held that the defendant would b6 put to greater hardship than the plaintiff if a decree for ejectment is passed in favour of the plaintiff. The plainliff has filed objections to this finding on May 16, 1981 praying that the aforesaid finding relating to comparative hardship may be set aside.;