R.L.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE miscellaneous second appeal has been preferred, by the defendant Jai Narain against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Merta, dated 9/12/1976.
(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent Pannalal filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Nagaur for eviction and arrears of rent regarding the suit shop described in the plaint -inter alia on the ground, of reasonable and bonafide necessity iv, well, as on the ground of subletting and defaults in the payment of rent. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Nagaur, by his judgment and decree dated 19/9/1973, so far the prayer, of ejectment was concerned; both the grounds i.e. of subletting and bonafide and reasonable necessity were not accepted aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Nagaur, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Merta. While the appeal, was pending before the District Judge, an amendment was made in Section 14 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent end Eviction) Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). After the amendment, Section 14(2) runs as under: (2) No decree for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (h) of Sub -section (1) of Section 13 shall be passed if the court is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the question whether other reasonable accommodation is available to the landlord or the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. 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 a, part to the premises, court shall pass the decree in respect of such, part only. In view of this amendment, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint for adding para No. 7A, regarding to the comparative greater hardship to the plaintiff if; the suit shop is not vacated. The learned District Judge considered this, amendment of the plaint necessary and he, therefore, allowed the amendment. He also held that in view of this amendment, it has become necessary to remand the case to the lower court for re -trial. He accordingly allowed the appeal of the plaintiff. The judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge were set aside and the case was remanded to the trial court with the direction that the plaintiff shall be asked to file the amended plaint, the defendant be asked to file the amended written statement and thereafter the necessary issues be framed and the case be disposed of according to the law after taking the evidence of the parties. It is against this judgment and decree of the learned District Judge dated 9/12/1976 that this appeal has been preferred by the defendant appellant.
(3.) I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties.;