P.D.KUDAL, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 100, CPC against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur dated January 30, 1975 reversing the, judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff, Udaipur dated January 18, 1974.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff Mohan Lal filed a suit for ejectment against Karim Ali in the Court of the learned Munsiff, Udaipur on the ground of requirement of the premises for his personal use and occupation. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on January 18, 1974. The plaintiff feeling aggrieved filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur on January 30, 1975. The plaintiff's suit for ejectment was decreed. It is against this judgment and decree that the defendant appellant has filed the present second appeal before this Court. During the pendency of this appeal, the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 was amended by the Rajasthan. Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction)(Amendment) Act, 1976 on March 3, 1976, and an additional issue was framed by this Court and was emitted to the learned lover Court for recording a finding on comparative hardship. On remand, the learned Additional Civil Judge recorded the evidence of the parties. On behalf of the appellant -plaintiff Mohan Lal PW/1, Sukhlal PW/2, Kishan Lal PW/3 and Jeewan Prakash PW/4 were examined. On behalf of the defendant -tenant Bhagwandas DW/1 Murjamal DW/2 were examined, with regard to the question of comparative hardship as contained in the additional issue which was framed by this Court and remitted to the learned lower appellate Court vide proceedings dated March 3, 1976 as stated above. On July 22, 1976, the learned Additional Civil Judge recorded the finding in favour of the plaintiff' respondent holding that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff if the suit for ejectment against the defendant -appellant is not decreed. The defendant -appellant has filed objections on December 4, 1976 against the finding of the learned Additional Civil Judge. The plaintiff -respondent has not filed any objection against that finding,
(3.) IT has been contended on behalf of the defendant -appellant that the plaintiff -respondent has failed to establish bonafide necessity with regard to the suit premises. It was also contended that if the question of bonafide necessity is decided against the plaintiff respondent, then the question of comparative hardship as envisaged in Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), cannot be looked into. It was also contended that the learned trial Court had dismissed the plaintiff's suit and that the learned Additional Civil Judge erred in law in reversing that finding of fact. It was also contended that the plaintiff's son is aged only 15 years who is said to be eager to start the business of running restaurant. It was also contended that the adjoining shop had fallen vacant, and that the plaintiff -respondent, leased it out to a washerman, and if he really wanted the shop in question for running the business of restaurant then there was no need for giving the adjoining shop on rent to the washerman. It was, therefore, contended that the appeal may be allowed, and the judgment and the decree of the learned appellate Court may be set aside and that the judgment and decree recorded by the learned trial Court be confirmed.;