- (1.) The appellant-defendant, Baij Nath Gupta, is aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 3.12.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, No.1, Fast Track, Karauli, whereby the learned Judge has granted the decree of eviction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff, Ramesh Chandra Gupta filed a suit on 22.11.2000, for arrears of rent and eviction against the appellant-defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent, nuisance and substantial damage, requiring the premises for construction and reasonable bonafide necessity of the same for his son Amit Kumar for business. The appellant-defendant filed his written statement and denied the contents of the plaint except the tenancy of the shop initially on a rent of Rs. 1600/- per month, which subsequently increased to Rs. 3610/- per month under the New Rent Control Act. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed eight issues. The respondent-plaintiff examined two witnesses including himself and submitted documents, whereas the appellant-defendant examined himself as the only witness, and submitted a few documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial court passed the decree against the appellant-defendant vide judgment and decree dated 3.12.2007. Hence, this civil first appeal before this Court.
(3.) The learned Senior counsel for the appellant-defendant, Mr. J.P. Goyal has raised the following contentions before this Court- According to proviso of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 ('the Act' for short), it is the duty of the court to consider the twin elements of relative hardship, and partial eviction. However, the learned Judge has failed to do so. Instead of critically analyzing the evidence with regard to the issue of partial eviction, the learned Judge has accepted the testimony of the plaintiff, Ramesh Chandra Gupta, and of his son, Amit Kumar as gospel truth. According to the plaintiff himself, the size of the shop in dispute is 13x40 feet, whereas according to the appellant-defendant, the size of the shop is 16x40 feet. According to the plaintiff, the shop in dispute was required for the purpose of establishing the business of electrical parts, for the benefit of his son, Amit Kumar, who was allegedly unemployed. Meanwhile, the appellant was running a Kirana Shop from the shop in dispute. According to the learned counsel, the learned Judge ought to have considered the issue whether the shop could be divided in such a manner as to permit both the plaintiff and defendant to peacefully co-exist and to run their business comfortably. But, the learned Judge has failed to consider this issue in a critical manner. Relying on the case of Krishna Murari Prasad v. Mitar Singh, 1994 AIR(SC) 489, the learned counsel has contended that even in a case of single room, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that it is a mandatory requirement of law that the issue of partial eviction should be considered by the trial court. Since, the trial court had failed to consider the said issue in the said case, the matter was remanded back to the trial court for giving its finding. Thus, this Court too should remand the case to the learned trial court.;