Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS appeal of the defendant - tenant is against the concurrent judgments and decrees of eviction by two Courts below for the suit shop situated at KEM Road, Bikaner. The Courts below found that personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiff - respondent was established by the plaintiff and therefore, he was entitled to a decree of eviction. As far as question of partial eviction is concerned, the Courts below have found that the suit shop is only 6 ft. x 14 ft. size and therefore, partial eviction could not be ordered. The plaintiff requires the said shop for setting up of his photo -copy machine shop and adjacent shop available for him was passage cum shop which was only 4 ft. wide. The Courts below have also found that the defendant had alternative shop in the market itself where he had established the shop for sale of Supari and therefore in view of alternative accommodation being owned and possessed by the defendant, the issue of comparative hardship was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the defendant Mr. Suresh Shrimali urged that the shop in question was situated in main market and the defendant had been carrying on his business of sale of "Supari" in that ever since 1971 when the said shop was let out to him on 1.9.1971 for a sum of Rs. 150/ -per month. He submitted that the bonafide need was claimed for Bhoj Raj S/O Ashu Ram and the plaintiff Noori Bai who is now about 70 years of age and therefore, the shop in question is not required for his bonafide need. He further submitted that partial eviction of the suit shop was possible and the defendant could part with the possession of 1/2 rear portion of suit shop of 6 x 14 ft. in which requirement of plaintiff - landlord of setting up of photo -stat machine could be satisfied.;