N.M.Kasliwal, J. - (1.) These three revisions are disposed of by a common order, as the landlords in all the three cases are the same and the three revisions have been filed by three different tenants, but a common order has been passed by the learned trial Court in all the three cases and common question of law is involved in these cases. The plaintiff-non-petitioners filed a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises, During the pendency of the suit, Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, was amended by Amending Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 which was later on replaced by Act No. 14 of 1976. A new Section 14 was introduced in the Amending Act which reads as under: "Section 14 -- Restriction on eviction 5 (1) -- No decree for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (b) of Sub-section 13 shall be passed unless the court is satisfied, after taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, that it is reasonable to allow such eviction. (2) -- No decree for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (b) 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 could 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 of the premises, the court shall pass the decree in respect of such part only. Notwithstanding anything contained In any law or contract, no suit for eviction from the premises let out for commercial or business purposes shall lie against a tenant on the ground set forth in Clause (b) of Sub-section (a) of Section 13 before the expiry of five years from the date the premises were let out to the tenant." After coming into force of the above amending Act, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the written statement, which was allowed and an additional issue No. 4-A on the question of comparative hardship was framed which reads as under : ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED)..
(2.) The petitioner then submitted an application praying therein that the above issue may be amended and the burden of proof should be placed on the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court by its impugned order re-framed the issue as under : ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED).. The same order has been passed in similar circumstances in all the three cases. Hence these revisions have been filed by all the three tenants.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court in Civil Revn. No. 238 of 1976 (Raj), Swaroop Singh Sher Singh v. Mohanlal, decided on 6-9-1976 and P. B. Desai v. C. M Patel, AIR 1974 SC 1059. On the basis of the above decision the learned counsel contends that the burden of proof of the issue framed regarding comparative hardship should have been placed on the plaintiffs. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has contended that according to the language of Section 14(2) of the Amending Act, the burden of proof of comparative hardship should be placed on the defendant tenant and not on the landlord. It is next contended that even if the trial Court has committed any error of law in placing burden of proof wrongly on the defendant tenant, this Court cannot interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil P. C.;