G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a civil second appeal of a tenant-defendant against whom the suit for eviction has been decreed by the appellate court. The decree has been passed on the basis of the finding in favour of the paintiffs-landlord that the necessity of suit premises of the plaintiffs is both reasonable and bonafide.
(2.) AFTER the amendment introduced in S. 13, of the Rajasthan Premises (Control Of Rent & Eviction) Act, (for brevity, the Act'), the requirement of comparative hardship of the plaintiff and the defendant needs examination. An issue was, therefore, framed and it was remitted to the lower court for recording of the evidence and giving a finding. The lower court, after recording of the evidence, has given the finding that the comparative hardship would be to the tenant-appellant if the premises are got vacated from him because, he would not got alternative premises. The finding is that the plaintiff has got residential premises in which their machines for manufacturing the tinklers (Ghungharu) are lying. The learned counsel for the tenant-appellant has submitted that the finding regarding comparative hardship is a rinding of fact and cannot be challenged in second appeal as held by this court in Chatar Lal Vs. Ramdas, (1 ). Shri G. S. Bafna, the learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that the whole approach of the lower court in respect of the finding of comparative hardship is against law, inasmuch as it was not necessary for the landlord to prove that the tenant would get accommodation in that very area. According to Shri Bafna, there is no evidence or finding that the tenant would not get any accommodation whatsoever for his flour mill in the Sikar town. During the course of the arguments, Shri Bafna. under the instruction from his client further agreed that his client would be prepared to accommodate the appellants-tenants in the residential premises of the plaintiff and would give an area of same dimensions which they are occupying now and that too after constructing a shed, so that the defendants are not put to any hardship or loss. This was agreed to, when the court suggested that if at all it comes to that, whether the plaintiffs would be able to do that.
(3.) NOW, So far as the question of bonafide and reasonable personal necessity is concerned, Shri Tikku has rightly pointed out that the concurrent finding of two courts on the point cannot be assailed to the facts. So far as the finding of comparative hardship is concerned, now the lower court has held that the plaintiffs have not produced any evidence to show that the defendants would get any shop near about the premises where, they are doing business of flour mill. Shri Tikku has stated that in Katla Bazar, no such premises would be available. On the above basis, the appellate court came to the conclusion that if the defendants are asked to vacate the premises, their business would be ruined. Contrary to it, the business of the plaintiffs is already being run in the shop where the tinklers (Ghungharu) are sold. All that the plaintiffs want is to increase that business. It is not necessary to do the manufacturing business of the tinklers (Ghungharu) in the main market. From the inspection note, it appears that the learned Civil Judge visited both the premises. The learned Judge has held that there are four rooms in the upper storey which, are lying vacant in the possession of the plaintiffs-respondents but, they are not sufficient for the machines intended to be installed in the suit premises by the plaintiffs nor the foundation of such machines can be laid on the first floor as there is risk of roof may collapse if the machines are installed at the upper storey. ;