N.M. KASLIWAL, J.—These three revisions are disposed of by a common order, as the landlords in all the three cases are the same and the three revision 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 bonafide personal requirement of the suit premises. During the pendency of the suit Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & 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 sec. 14 was introduced in the Amending Act which reads as under: "Section- 14—Restriction on evictiton: — No decree for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (b) of sub-seetion 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. (1) (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 accomodation 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 party of the premises, the court shall pass the decree in respect of such pact 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 (h) of sub-sec. (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 en additional issue No. 4A on the question of comparative hardship was. (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 en additional issue No. 4A on the question of comparative hardship was. framed which reads as under: ^^D;k fookn xzLr Hkwfe [kkyh djkus dh fMØh oknh ds fgr esa lknhj u fd;s tkus dh gkyr esa izfroknh ds eqdkcys oknh dks vf/kd gkaMfki gksxh\ 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: ^^D;k fooknxzLr Hkwfe fjDr djokus dks vkKfIr vknsk ls gksus okyh dfBukbZ izfroknh vkKfIr mn;ksd`fr vknsk dh fLFkfr esa oknh dh dfBukbZ dh vis{kk vf/kd dfBukbZ gksxhA** 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 S.B. Civil Revision No. 23671977 M/S Swaroop Singh Sher Singh vs. Mohanlal decided on 6th September, 197S (1) and PS. Desai vs. C.M. Patel (2). 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 sec. 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 re visional jurisdiction under see. 115 Code of Civil Procedure. 4. 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 re visional jurisdiction under see. 115 Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case P.S. Desai vs. C.M. Patel (2) have laid down as under: "So far as the finding on the question of greater hardship is concerned, the District Judge decided against the respondents on the view that as soon as the landlord establishes that he reasonably and bonafide requires the premises for his own use and occupation, the burden of proving that greater hardship would be caused by passing a decree for eviction than by refusing to pass it is on the tenant and if the tenant fails to discharge this burden by producing proper evidence, a decree for eviction must be against him. This view in regard to the burden of proof, no doubt, prevailed at one time in various High Courts on the basis of the decision of the Court of Appeal in England in Kelly vs. Goodwin (1947) 1 All ER 810 but in can no longer be regarded as correet after the decision of this Court in M/s. Central Tobacco Co. vs. Chandra Prakash Civil Appeal No. 1175 of 1969 D/- 23-4-1969 (reported in AIR 1969 NSC 89). This Court speaking through Mitter J., pointed out in that case, while discussing Section 21 (4) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, and what was said there must apply equally in relation to Section 13(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, which is in identical terms ; "We do not find ourselves able to accept the broad proposition that as soon as the landlord establishes his need for additional accommodation he is relieved of all further obligation under section 21 sub-section (4) and that once the landlords need is accepted by the Court all further evidence must be adduced by the tenant if he claims protection under the Act. Each party must adduce evidence to show what hardship would be caused to him by the granting or refusal of the decree and it will be for the court to determine whether the suffering of the tenant in case a decree was made, would be more than that of the landlord by its refusal. Each party must adduce evidence to show what hardship would be caused to him by the granting or refusal of the decree and it will be for the court to determine whether the suffering of the tenant in case a decree was made, would be more than that of the landlord by its refusal. The whole object of the Act is to provide for the control of rents and evictions for the leasing of buildings etc. and section 21 specifically enumerates the grounds which alone will "entitle a landlord to evict his tenant Cl (h) of Section 21 contains one of such grounds, namely, that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by himself. The onus of proof of this is certainly on the landlord. We see no sufficient reason for holding that once that onus is discharged by the landlord it shifts to the tenant taking it obligatory on him to show that greater hardship would be caused to him by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. In our opinion both sides must adduce all relevant evidence before the court, the landlord must show that other reasonable accommodation was not available to him and the tenant must also adduce evidence to that effect. It is only after sifting such evidence that the court must form its conclusion on consideration of all the circumstances of the case as to whether greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it." It is further held by their Lordships "It is, therefore, clear that the District Judge placed the burden of poof wrongly on the respondents and the finding of fact arrived at by him on question of greater hardship wag vitiated by a mistake of law." Honble Sachar J in case of M/S Swaroop Singh vs. Mohanlal (referred to above) placing reliance on the above Supreme Court case observed as under :— "In my view, therefore, the burden should not have been placed on the tenant petitioner. The trial Court has committed a material irregularity in placing burden on the defendant. It is proper that this illegality should be corrected at the earliest." 5. In view of the above decision of Honble the Supreme Court the matter finally sets at rest. The trial Court has committed a material irregularity in placing burden on the defendant. It is proper that this illegality should be corrected at the earliest." 5. In view of the above decision of Honble the Supreme Court the matter finally sets at rest. The burden of proof on the question of greater hardship shall always lie initially on the landlord. However their Lordships have already made it clear as mentioned above that once that onus is discharged by the landlord, it shifts to the tenant m king it obligatory on him to show that greater hardship would be causrd to him by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. Both the parties must adduce all relevant evidence before the court and the court after sifting such evidence, must form its conclusion on consideration of all the circumstances of the case as to whether greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. The placing of burden of issue wrongly on a party is a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court and this court has jurisdiction to correct such arror in exercise of its powers under sec. 115 C.P.C. I am in agreement with the view taken by Honble Sacher J. that such illegality should be corrected at the earliest. 6. In this view of the matter the above revisions succeed, the order of the learned trial court dated 11th October, 1976, passed in all the three cases mentioned above, so far as placing the burden of proof on the defendant tenant is set aside and the burden of proof of such issue is placed on the plaintiffs. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.