S.N. Modi, J. - (1.) This is a second appeal by the defendant -tenant against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Chittorgarh dated May 25, 1977 affirming the decree for eviction passed against the appellant by the Munsif Partabgarh. There is no dispute that the relationship between the parties is that of landlord and tenant. The respondent -landlord field a suit for eviction from the suit premises on the ground that he required the premises reasonably and bonafide for the use and occupation of his son Rishabh Kumar. The defendant -appellant resisted the suit and denied that the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for the use and occupation of his son Rishabh Kumar. It was also alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for eviction as the tenant would suffer greater hardship by passing the decree than refusing to pass it.
(2.) The trial court on the pleadings of the parties framed the following two important issues: - 1. Whether the suit premises are required by the plaintiff reasonably and bonafide? 2. (a) Whether greater hardship shall be caused to the plaintiff by refusing to pass the decree for eviction in his favour? Both the courts below decided both these issues in favour of the plaintiff landlord. If was held by both the courts below that the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for the use and occupation of his son Rishabh Kumar. It was further held that the plaintiff -landlord would suffer greater hardship than the defendant tenant, if decree for eviction is not passed in his favour.
(3.) Dissatisfied with the appellate decree the defendant -tenant has preferred this second appeal. The appeal was admitted by this Court on July 15, 1977 on the ground that there exists substantial question of law in this appeal as to whether greater hardship would be caused to the landlord by refusing to pass the decree in favour of the landlord.;