JUDGMENT 1. - This is a plaintiff-landlord's appeal under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code directed against the appellate judgment dated May 4, 1976 of the Additional District Judge, Sirohi, passed in Civil Appeal (decree) No. 88 of 1975. 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant in the Court of Munsif, Abu Road. The ejectment of the defendant tenant was sought on the grounds mentioned in para 5 of the plaint. The grounds mentioned in para 5 are default in payment of rent, sub-letting and reasonable and bona fide necessity. The learned Munsif, vide his judgment dated August 28, 1975, decreed the plaintiff's suit for eviction against the defendant with costs in respect of the premises in suit. The defendant-tenant went in appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi vide his judgment dated May 4, 1976 accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif and remanded the case to him for re-decision according to law and in accordance with the observations made in the impugned judgment. Issue No. 3, framed by the trial court, when translated into English, reads as under : "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the house in dispute on the ground mentioned in para 4 of the plaint ?" (The correct para in the plaint is para 5 and this is mentioned in issue No. 3 as para No. 4). According to the learned Munsif, issue No. 3 related to three points : (1) Whether the defendant is defaulter 7 (2) Whether the defendant has sublet a portion of the suit premises ? and (3) Whether the plaintiff requires the suit premises reasonably and bona fide ? With regard to point No. 1, the learned Munsif did not consider it necessary to give any finding. As regards point No. 2, it was partly decided against the plaintiff and partly against the defendant and it was held that the sub-letting to Babulal is proved and this is sufficient to evict the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of subletting. So far as point No. 3 was concerned, he recorded a finding that the evidence of the plaintiff clearly proved that the suit premises are required by him reasonably and bonajide. So far as point No. 3 was concerned, he recorded a finding that the evidence of the plaintiff clearly proved that the suit premises are required by him reasonably and bonajide. In the appeal, before the learned Additional District Judge only two points were raised, namely, (1) Whether the defendant has sublet a portion of demised premises and (2) Whether the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide. So far as the question of sub-letting is concerned, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the finding of the trial court on the point. As regards the reasonable and bona fide necessity, the learned Additional District Judge did not think it proper to reverse the finding on this point in view of the amendment in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the impugned order, he observed as under : "The question of comparative hardship will have to be investigated afresh, therefore, the case will have to go back to the Court below to record findings on this issue afresh after having afforded opportunity to the parties to amend the pleadings and adduce evidence if they so desire." Learned counsel for the parties, during the course of arguments, stated before me that they want to amend the plaint and the written statement, in so far as the grounds of reasonable and bona fide necessity and comparative hardship are concerned. They, also submitted that in the light of the amendment, which they want to make in the pleadings relating to reasonable and bona fide necessity, and comparative hardship production of additional affidavit having bearing on these two grounds will be necessary. As regards the ground of sub-letting for eviction is concerned, the learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the findings recorded by the trial court as well as by the lower appellate court may be set aside and a direction may be given to the trial court for deciding the point of sub-letting afresh on the basis of the material, which is already on record. So far as the question of default is concerned, it was neither in controversy before the lower appellate court nor learned counsel for,the parties want to raise any grievance about it in this appeal. 3. So far as the question of default is concerned, it was neither in controversy before the lower appellate court nor learned counsel for,the parties want to raise any grievance about it in this appeal. 3. In view of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is accepted and the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge dated May 4, 1976 are set aside. It will be open to the plaintiff and the defendant to amend their pleadings on the questions of reasonable and bona fide necessity and comparative hardship. After the amendment, the trial court will strike an additional issue relating to comparative hardship keeping in view of the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act. The parties shall be free to lead additional evidence on the questions of reasonable and bona fide necessity and comparative hardship. The trial court shall decide the suit for ejectment afresh confining itself only to two grounds covered by Section 13(l)(c) and (b) on the Act in the light of the observations made hereinabove. By agreement of the learned counsel for the parties, it is ordered that the parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.Appeal accepted. *******