Navin Chandra Sharma, J. - (1.) The predecessor-in-title of the appellants had instituted on 30th Nov., 72 civil Original Suit No. 531/72, for arrears of rent and ejectment from a shop, situated at Bajajkhana, Tonk, against his tenant Machchhukhan, in the court of unsif, Tonk. Ejectment of Machchhukhan tenant from the shop was claimed on Against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Tonk, dated 31st July, 1982, setting aside the judgment and decree of Munsif, Tonk, dated 3rd May, 1977. the ground that Madho Lal's son Vimalchand would carry on separately his business in cloth in the shop. The suit was resisted by Machchhukhan, who alleged that the landlord Madholal had five other shops, and that Vimalchand was carrying on his business in cloth, along with his brother Babulal in a shop. He also stated that he had not got any other shop with him, and that he was carrying on his tailoring work in the suit shop for the last about thirty years, and further that comparatively there would be greater hardship to him if a decree for ejectment was passed against him. Madholal's Civil Suit No. 531/72 was decreed by the Munsif, Tonk, on 29th Apr. '74, as against Machchhukhan.
(2.) Machchhukhan filed Civil First Appeal No. 29/74, which was dismissed by the ADJ, Tonk, on 25th Nov., '74. Machchhukhan came in Second Appeal No. 64/75 before this Court. There had been an amendment to the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, and S. 14(2) of the said Act, as amended, provided that "no decree for eviction on the grounds set forth in clause (h) of sub-section (1) of S. 13 shall be passed if the court is satisfied that having regard to all the c -cut-_ stances of the case, including the question whether 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. 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". In view of this amendment in the law, counsel for the parties in Civil Second Appeal No. 64/75 agreed that the case be remanded to the trial court for framing an appropriate issue in the light of the amendment and to dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by his judgment dated 30th Jan., 76, for the above reason, allowed the appeal filed by Machchhukhan; set aside the decrees of the courts below; and remanded the case back to the trial court. In the remand-order, it was stated that the parties would be free to lead fresh evidence, if they so desired, on the newly framed issue. The evidence recorded during the original trial was also, subject to just exceptions, was directed to be the evidence during the trial after remand.
(3.) After the remand of the suit, the trial court framed in additional issue on the question of comparative hardship. In relation to this additional issue, tenant Machchhukhan examined himself and three other witnesses. The plaintiff also further examined himself and his son Babulal. The Munsif, Tonk, by his decree dated 3rd May, '77, again decreed the suit of landlord Madholal for ejectment of the tenant. Aggrieved by this decree, Machchhukhan tenant filed Civil First Appeal No. 63/77. During the pendency of this civil first appeal, Machchhukhan tenant died, and by order of the first appellate court dated 23rd Apr., '80, the legal representatives of Machchhukhan were brought on record. This first appeal was decided by the Civil Judge, Tonk, by his judgment dated 31st July, '82. On the question of the requirement of the suit-shop by the plaintiff, for the purpose of his son for carrying on business by the latter in cloth, the first appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and held that the suit-shop was not reasonable aid bona fide required by the landlord, for his son Vimalchand. On the question c f comparative hardship also, the first appellate court held that other suitable accommodation was available with the landlord. As regards one shop with the plaintiff, it was held by the first appellate court that this was used as a 'Baithak' and for having access. The plaintiff's another son was doing 'Parchuni' business in it and it could be used by the plaintiff for the purposes of his son Vimalchand. The first appellate court held that deceased Machchhukhan and his sons were carrying on tailoring business in the demised shop for the last 30 years, and that if they were ejected from the shop, they would have no means of their livelihood. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, the first appellate court held that the tenant would suffer comparatively greater hardship if a decree for ejectment was passed against him. It, therefore, allowed the appeal; set aside the decree for ejectment, passed by the Munsif, Tonk; and consequently, dismissed the suit of the landlord for ejectment of the tenant. Madholal then filed the present second appeal in this Court.;