- (1.) The suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 6.11.1979. Though, plea of reasonable bonafide necessity was accepted by the trial court, however, suit was dismissed on the ground of comparative hardship.
(2.) Above judgment and decree dated 6.11.1979 passed by the trial court was, however, set aside and reversed by the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 22.10.1992. Apart from bonafide reasonable necessity the suit has been decreed on the ground of comparative hardship as well. This court, while admitting the present appeal, framed following substantial questions of law on 116.12.1992:- 1. Whether in view of the properties bearing No. AMC/XIX/524, property No. AMC/XIX/519 and property AMC/XIX/316 having come into possession of the plaintiff during the pendency of litigation the alleged need of plaintiff has come to an end? 2. Whether the First Appellate Court was required to examine the hardship occasioned by the death of the sole defendant leaving behind young widow and all minor sons and daughters? 3. Whether under Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act duty was cast on the appellate court to examine and judicially explore as to whether partial eviction of the premises would satisfy the need of the plaintiff and non-consideration of the same has been vitiated the entire judgment and decree? 4. Whether the First Appellate Court has committed serious error of law in deciding the question of comparative hardship against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff despite the finding of the trial court dated 27.2.1984 given on the remitted issue?
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant, while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of "Rehman Jeo Wangnoo Versus Ram Chand" (AIR 1978 SC 413) as also this court in the case of "Riaz Mohammad Versus Rameshwar" (RLW 1989 (1) page 95), has contended that both the courts below have failed to consider the issue of partial eviction and the matter requires to be remitted back to the lower appellate court on the issue of partial eviction.;