SOBHAGMAL JAIN,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 15, 1982 passed by the Additional District Judge, Udaipur affirming the judgment and decree dated March 5, 1975 of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur decreeing the plaintiff's suit for eviction. The suit for eviction has been decreed by the learned Courts below on the ground that the suit shop was required reasonably and bonafide by the plaintiff for running his own dispensary in same.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that there is no clear finding by the Additional District Judge that the suit shop is required reasonably and bonafide by the plaintiff and that in the absence of such a clear finding decree for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (h) of proviso to Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') cannot be maintained. I have gone through the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. After going through the same I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Additional District Judge was alive to the question whether the plaintiff requires the suit shop reasonably and bonafide. The entire discussion of point No. 3 is directed to the question regarding bonafide requirement and comparative hardship. The learned Additional District Judge has, in terms approved the findings of the trial Court on issue Nos. 4 and ka wrongly mentioned as issue No. 1 and ka which is only a typographical error. Both the Courts have elaborately discussed the question of bonafide necessary and comparative hardship and have given reasons for arriving at the same I do not find any error to justify interference in second appeal. The appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The counsel for the appellant submits that the defendant should be given some time to vacate the premises. The submission seems to be reasonable and I am of the opinion that a period of six months to vacate the premises should be granted to the tenant-appellant, provided he furnishes an undertaking within six weeks in this Court to the effect : (1) that he shall deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises on or before June 15, 1988. (2) that he shall continue to pay a sum of Rs. 80/- per month as damages for use and occupation of the premises during the period the suit shop remains in his possession : and (3) that he shall not induct any one in the suit premises and will not part with the possession of the same during this period. Accordingly, the decree passed by the Additional District Judge is maintained with the modification that the defendant tenant shall be granted time to vacate the suit premises upto June 15, 1988 provided he executes an undertaking in this Court within six weeks from today, failing which the decree of eviction shall become executable forthwith. Parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.;