S.K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) PRIOR to the Amendment Ordinance No. 26 of 1975, the Rajasthan Rent Act did not contemplate for splitting up of the premises for the purposes of passing a decree for partial eviction but now the second part of sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act), 1950 (for short the Act) contemplates decree for eviction from the part of the premises.
(2.) IN this second appeal following substantial questions of law relating partial eviction of the premises arise :- (i) Whether the appellate Court was erroneous in law in affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court without considering the feasibility and practicability of partition of the tenement in possession of the appellant ? (ii) Whether the appellant's argument that a part of the tenement could serve the need of the respondent and that the decree of the trial Court was erroneous in not having done so ? (iii) Whether the appellate court could refuse to decide the question of partial eviction raised by the appellant in the lower appellate Court on the ground that the said plea had not been taken in the written statement ? (iv) Whether under section 14(2) of the Act, the reasonableness of the need of the landlord could not be decided without considering the question of partial eviction ? and (v) Whether the Courts below could take into consideration the purchase of a shop by the appellant situated in Sabji Mandi and consider it to be sufficient for the purposes of defendant-appellant without finding that it could not be utilised for residential purposes ? The facts bereft of elaborate details but necessary for this appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent (for short the landlord) brought a suit seeking eviction of the defendant-appellant (for short the tenant) from the house situated in Sarafa Bazar Bharatpur. The landlord claimed eviction on the ground of his bona fide need which was stated to be the need of his son Kanhaiya Lal. This need of the landlord was found proved by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. Hence this second appeal.
(3.) THE proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act lays down that where the Court is satisfied that no hardship would be caused either to the tenant or to the landlord by passing the decree in respect of the premises the Court shall pass the decree in respect of such part only. In the case on hand, landlord's requirement having been found proved, the court had to scan the matter further in accordance to the proviso and an order for eviction from the entire premises could be made only if a decree for partial eviction in the manner provided could not substantially satisfy the landlord's requirement.;