M.L.SHRIMAL, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff -landlords, second appeal arising out of a But for ejectment based on personal necessity.
(2.) THE respondent has filed an application on October 8, 1975 praying that the decree passed by the lower courts may be Bet aside in view of the recent amendment of Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The relevant amendment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the parties is as under: 14(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 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. A perusal of the above section would reveal that the effect of the amendment is that while previously if a landlord required the demised premises reasonably and bonafide for the use and occupation for himself and for his family he could obtain a decree for eviction of a tenant but after the amendment the court will have to further examine the question of hardship of the landlord and tenant before passing a decree of eviction against the defendant.
(3.) IT is a common ground between the parties that none of the courts below had gone into the question of parties hardship as envisaged under Section 14(2) of the Act as amended by the Amendment Ordinance of 1975. The learned Counsel for both the parties agree that the case be remanded to the trial court for framing an appropriate issue in light of the amendment and to be disposed of on the merits in accordance with law.;