MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Sirohi dated April 3,1989 by which he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment decree of the Munsif, Abu Road dated October 4,1983, decreeing the suit for rent & ejectment. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.
(2.) THE plaintiff Babu Khan (father of the respondents) filed suit for the recovery of arrears of rent & ejectment against the defendant-appellant on the grounds of default in payment of rent, nuisance and reasonable & bona fide necessity. THE defend ant admitted that he is in occupation & possession of the demised room on monthly rent of Rs. 15/- and traversed all other averments of the plaint. After framing necessary issues & recording the evidence of the parties the trial court decreed the suit on the ground of nuisance and reason-able & bona fide necessity, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintifl Babu Khan died and his legal representatives, i. e. , three sons and one daughter were duly brought on record. THE defendant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Sirohi. It was dismissed by his judgment under appeal Ejectment on the ground of reasonable & bona fide necessity was affirmed and not on the ground of nuisance. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the learned trial court and the first appellate court has misread the evidence on record and has arrived at erroneous conclusion. He was repeatedly asked to point out the relevant portion of the evidence on record which was misread or ignored or the two courts below went out of the record, but he failed to do so. It was next contended that the trial court has seriously erred in considering the evidence without any pleadings of the plantiff-respondent. This contention is also devoid of force. The trial court framed issues No 3,4 and 7 for ejectmen on the ground of reasonable & bona fide necessity. There is nothing on the record to indicate that any objection was raised by the defendant-appellant for framing these issues or any step was taken for striking off any of the issues. In view of the provisions of Sec. 14 (2), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, the issues No. 4 and 7 were framed. It cannot, therefore, be sad that the trial court committed an error in framing these issues, even though the pleadings of the parties were obscure In view of these issues the parties produced their evidence. There is also nothing on the record to indicate that any objection was raised by the defendant when the evidence was being tendered on any not covered by its pleading At this stage of the case, the defendant-appellant cannot successfully be allowed to contend that such evidence could not be recorded and read in evidence. It has also been contended that the learned lower courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. This contention is also devoid of force. It is the admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff Babu Khan died leaving behind three sons and one daughter, all three sons (respondents No. 1 to 3) are married and they have three rooms only in their house. It is also well proved from the evidence on record that in one of the three rooms, the work & business of tailoring are done. Thus their remains two rooms only for the residence of the three married respondents No. 1 to 3. The demised premises consists of one room only. The two courts have observed that the defendant-appellant did not make any effort to search house for his residence, since the pendency of the suit. It may be mentioned here that the suit was filed in the year, 1979. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the courts below have erred to hold that the demised room is reasonably & bonafidely required by the plaintiff-respondents, they would suffer greater hardship if the suit for ejectment is not decreed and there is no question of partial eviction. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The findings on reasonable and bona fide necessity and comparative hardship are findings of fact. They cannot be disturbed in second appeal. Reference of A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 1596, A. I. R. 1988 S. C. 396 and A. I. R. 1978 S. C. 29 may be made here. Thus there is no force in the second appeal.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is summarily dismissed. The appellant is given three months time to vacate the demised premises. .;