V.S.KOKJE, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition against an Order dated January 11, 1996 passed by the lower appellate Court on applications under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, moved by the petitioner who was the appellant before it.
(2.) NON -petitioner Ganesh Lal and others have brought a suit against the revision-petitioner for eviction and recovery of rent on the ground of default in payment of rent and need of the sons of Ganesh Lal, Harak Lal and Kanhaiya Lal as also of Ganesh Lal himself. The trial Court decreed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent and the petitioner filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court. In the appeal the petitioner moved an application under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC praying for framing of an issue on the question of partial eviction and remand of the case to the trial Court for decision on that issue. The non-petitioners -- respondents opposed the prayer on the ground that the issue regarding comparative hardship covers the point and as there was no specific plea about partial eviction, no issue could be raised on that. Another application was moved by the petitioner before the lower appellate court under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking certain additional evidence on record regarding establishment of agriculture produce market at Udaipur and consequent ban on trade in agriculture produce in the old Dhanmandi where the suit shop is situated. This prayer was also opposed by the plaintiffs. Third application was under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement on the basis of alleged subsequent events. This application was also opposed by the plaintiffs. The appellate Court rejected the applications under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and deferred the consideration of application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for decision along with the appeal itself. Aggrieved by this order, the defendant-petitioner has come up in this revision. Mr. R.R. Nagori, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) is mandatory and no decree of eviction on any of the grounds set forth in Section 13(1)(h) can be passed unless the Court is satisfied that greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. According to the learned counsel, the Court is also bound to consider whether any hardship would be caused either to the tenant or to the landlord by passing the decree in respect of part of the premises and satisfied, pass the decree in respect of part of the premises only. According to the learned Counsel therefore, the appellate Court was also bound to consider all these questions by raising a specific issue under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC.
(3.) A decision of the Supreme Court in Rahman Jeo Wangnoo v. Ram Chand, AIR 1978 SC 413 : 1978(1) RCR 572 (SC) was cited for the proposition that it was mandatory for the Court to consider whether a part of the premises will satisfy the need of the landlord. It is observed in this case that even in the absence of a specific pleading the Court has to act in accordance with the mandate and give a finding as to whether a part of the premises would substantially satisfy reasonable requirement of the landlord.;