JUDGMENT 1. - This is a tenant's appeal against whom a decree of ejectment from the residential premises has been passed in favour of the plaintiff landlord on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity. 2. Mr. Bhandari appearing for the appellant submitted that the trial court has misconstrued the evidence of the plaintiff as that of the defendant and vice versa while considering the question of comparative hardship under section 14 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. It was also argued that even the first appellate Court has not taken note of all the acts in favour of the defendant which proves that the hardship would be caused to the defendant much more than that to the plaintiff if the decree of ejectment is granted. It was also argued that the plaintiff is already having accommodation with the mother-in-law and, therefore, as their son is living at Ahmadabad, their evidence that they want to reside in the disputed house which has been gifted to them by the mother-in-law, fails to carry any conviction and is concocted one. 3. Mr. Bhandari also argued that the prescription produced and taken as proof for showing the ailment of the plaintiff , has not been properly proved and, therefore, they are inadmissible in evidence. 4. I have considered the submissions of Mr. Bhandari and also gone through the record of the case. It is true that some mistake was committed by the trial court in the mentioning of plaintiff and defendant while considering the question of comparative hardship but since the first appellate court has weighed and considered all the points in favour and against the parties for determining and adjudicating all the questions on comparative hardship, the initial mistake committed by the trial court is of no significance now. 5. The admissibility for non-admissibility of the prescriptions have also got little beating because oral evidence of the plaintiff is sufficient to prove that the plaintiff Chandbibi is suffering from asthama. It has also come in evidence that Rahimbux is an old man and suffering from some dysentery at Ahmadabad. 5. The admissibility for non-admissibility of the prescriptions have also got little beating because oral evidence of the plaintiff is sufficient to prove that the plaintiff Chandbibi is suffering from asthama. It has also come in evidence that Rahimbux is an old man and suffering from some dysentery at Ahmadabad. The defendant has tried to rebut this evidence by oral evidence but on a comparative appraisal of the oral evidence both the lower courts have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not keeping good health and they want to have a change over from Ahmadabad to Jaipur. It has also been proved that as a matter of fact at Jaipur they have got no other residence and they cannot live with their mother-in-law for long time because it is bound to spoil relations in view of the delicacy of relationship. 6. Regarding comparative hardship, Mr. Bhandari could not point out any specific omission of the first appellate Court and all that he emphasised was that the number of the members of the family of the defendant is quite large in comparison to that of the plaintiff. The first appellate Court has already taken note of this act but the question of bona fide and reasonable necessity and comparative hardship cannot be decided solely on the ground of numerical strength of the family though in a given case it may assume some importance. 7. On a careful consideration of the entire case, I am of the opinion that primarily both the questions raised by Mr. Bhandari are questions of act and it is not possible to inter ere in second appeal against concurrent finding of act of both the Courts that the plaintiffs require the premises bona fide and reasonably having necessity for their own residence and further that the comparative hardship would be more to the plaintiff if the decree of ejectment is not passed. 8. In view of the above, it is not necessary to discuss in details the entire evidence produced by both the parties. 9. Mr. Bhandari also submits that a part of the premises may be given to his client. It is not possible to work out this suggestion at the appellate stage in the High Court. 8. In view of the above, it is not necessary to discuss in details the entire evidence produced by both the parties. 9. Mr. Bhandari also submits that a part of the premises may be given to his client. It is not possible to work out this suggestion at the appellate stage in the High Court. The defendant, if he was serious about it, should have made this suggestion in the pleadings so that both the parties after becoming conscious of it, would have led evidence on this aspect of the matter. The parties have fought this case for the last 13 years and it would not be proper that both of them are compelled to live together in the same house by sharing some apartments at this stage of second appeal. It would only create bad blood and feud between the two. Such suggestions should come at the earliest so that harmonious relations can be maintained and the Court can pass appropriate orders at the initial stage. 10. The defendant has got a large family of about 12-13 members and there is no doubt that it would require considerable time to find out suitable accommodation in view of the general shortage of accommodation in city of Jaipur. With that object it would meet the ends of justice if the defendant is allowed fourteen months time to vacate the premises. 11. The result is that this appeal is dismissed with the slight modification that the decree of ejectment would become executable after fourteen months from today. The parties would bear their own costs.Appeal dismissed. *******