JUDGMENT 1. - This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated September 24, 1986 of the Additional District Judge No. 1 Udaipur, affirming the judgment and decree dated November 23, 1982 of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, City North, Udaipur, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for eviction. 2. The plaintiff's suit for eviction was filed in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, City North Udaipur on August 27, 1977 against the appellant herein on the ground that the suit premises, the shop, is required reasonably and bonafide for the son of the plaintiff for establishing his readymade garments business in the said shop and that the defendant was the defaulter in payment of rent. The suit was contested by the defendant. He denied the personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiff and also contested the plaintiff's claim that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:- 1- D;k izfroknh us fdjk;s dh vnk;xh esa fMQkYV fd;k gS \ 2- D;k fooknxzLr nqdku dh oknh dks vius iq= gwDehpUn ds O;olk; ds fy, mfpr ,oa lnHkkoukiw.kZ vko';drk gS \ 3- D;k nqdku [kkyh djus dh fMDdh ikfjr djus ij oknh ,oa izfroknh esa ls fdls vf/kd vlqfo/kk o gkMZf'ki gksxh \ 3. By the judgment dated November 23, 1982 the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, City North. Udaipur decreed the plaintiff's suit holding inter alia that the plaintiff required the suit shop reasonably and bonafide for his son who wanted to establish the garment business in the said shop and that the comparative hardship was also in favour of the plaintiff inasmuch as he was to suffer more than the defendant if a decree for eviction was not passed in his favour. The trial Court also held the defendant a defaulter in the payment of rent. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge, upheld the findings of the learned Munsif and dismissed the defendant's appeal. The learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the need of the plaintiff was reasonable and bonafide and that he required the suit shop for his son to establish the business of garments in the said shop. The learned Additional District Judge further held that the comparative hardship was also in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the need of the plaintiff was reasonable and bonafide and that he required the suit shop for his son to establish the business of garments in the said shop. The learned Additional District Judge further held that the comparative hardship was also in favour of the plaintiff. Further, the Additional District Judge also held that the defendant was a defaulter in the payment of rent. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the Court learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings of the learned Additional District Judge both on the question of default in the payment of rent as also on the question whether the plaintiff required the suit shop reasonably and bonafide. 4. So far as the question of default is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent does not press this as a ground for eviction and I need not, therefore, enter into this question. As regards he bonafide and personal need of the plaintiff, I agree with the finding of the learned counsel below that the shop is required reasonably and bonafide by the plaintiff for his son for establishing garments business in the suit shop. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the site inspection made on November 22, 1982 shows that there are six shops and not four and, therefore, the learned Courts below have proceeded on an erroneous assumption that there were only four shops. I have looked into the site inspection.Four shops have been shown in the site inspection memo. Learned counsel contends that shop No. 2 is not one shop but it consists of two shops and that shop No. 1 can also be converted into two shops. There is no dividing wall in shop No. 2 to divide it into two shops and, therefore, looking to the site inspection memo it cannot be said that it consists of two shops. In the same manner, shop No. 1 is also not capable of being divided into two shops. Learned Courts below have rightly proceeded on the premise that there were four shops out of which shop No. 9 was already on lease with her tenant. Shop No. 1 was being used by the plaintiff himself in his business of tailor, while shop No. 2 was being used by the plaintiff's wife for ginning cotton. Learned Courts below have rightly proceeded on the premise that there were four shops out of which shop No. 9 was already on lease with her tenant. Shop No. 1 was being used by the plaintiff himself in his business of tailor, while shop No. 2 was being used by the plaintiff's wife for ginning cotton. The finding of the learned Courts below is correct that the plaintiff requires the suit shop i.e. shop No. 4 for his son for establishing the garments business. The learned Additional District Judge has given good reasons. He has said:- tgka rd oknh ds iq= ds }kjk VSEiks pykus dk iz'u gS] ;g LiLV gS fd og Loa; Hkh lk{; esa izLrqr gqvk gS] mlus izdV fd;k gS fd fookfnr nqdku esa og jsMhesM diM+s dk O;kikj djsxk] mldks fookfnr nqdku dh futh ln~Hkkoh vko';drk gS A ;g Li"V fl)kar gS fd oknh dks o mlds iq= dks fdlh Hkh oSf/kd izko/kku ls bl ckr ds fy, foo'k ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS fd og VSEiks dk O;olk; gh djs] dVihl o jsMhesM diM+s dk O;olk; ugha djsA bl lanHkZ esa oknh o mldk iq= dksbZ Hkh O;olk; djus ds fy, LorU= gSa A oknh dk iq= gqDepUn i<+k fy[kk O;fDr gSA vr% mldks VSEiks pykus ds dk;Z ds fy, izfroknh foo'k ugha dj ldrk A XXX XXX XXX ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd izR;kFkhZ&oknh dh futh vko';rk ds Dyse dks lnHkkoh ,oa v'kfDr;qDr ugha dgk tk ldrk D;kassfd oknh dk iq= o;Ld gks pqdk gS] mlus viuh i<+kbZ lekIr dj yh gS] fookfnr nqdku esa og viuk dVihl ,oa jsMhesM diM+s dk O;olk; djuk pkgrk gS] VSEiks pykus dk Hkh viuk O;olk; fu;fer ugha ekuk tk ldrk rFkk mldks blds fy, ck/; ugha fd;k tk ldrk A orZeku esa tc rd fookfnr nqdku mldks izkIr ugha gksrh gS] vr% og VSEiks pykus dk ;k flykbZ djus dk dk;Z djrk gS rks mlls ;g ugha cuk;k tk ldrk fd mldh futh vko';drk dk Dyse vln~Hkkoh gSA 5. I agree with the aforesaid finding and hold that the plaintiff requires the suit shop reasonably and bonafide for his son. I also concur with the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the plaintiff will suffer more hardship than the defendant if the decree for eviction is not passed in his favour. 6. I agree with the aforesaid finding and hold that the plaintiff requires the suit shop reasonably and bonafide for his son. I also concur with the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the plaintiff will suffer more hardship than the defendant if the decree for eviction is not passed in his favour. 6. On these findings I affirm the decree of eviction passed by the learned Courts below. There is no merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. However, on the request of the appellant, the respondent has agreed to give time to the appellant to vacate the premises on or before December 31, 1987 on the condition that the appellant shall give an undertaking to this Court to abide by the following conditions:- (a) That the appellant shall deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the landlord respondents on or before December 31, 1987. The appellant declares that he alone is in occupation of the premises as tenant; (b) That the appellant shall pay to the respondents for use and occupation of the premises at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month by the 15th of next month. He may deposit the amount in the trial Court and the respondent-landlords shall be at liberty to withdraw the same; (c) That the appellant shall not induct anyone in the premises nor part with possession of the same. The appellant shall not make any constructions or alterations in the premises; and (d) That the appellant shall not enter into any agreement with anyone in respect of the premises without the prior permission of this Court. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, but the appellant is given time to vacate the premises upto December 31, 1987 on the conditions mentioned above. The appellant shall file the aforesaid undertaking within three weeks from today. The landlord plaintiff shall not execute the decree till December 31, 1987 if the aforesaid undertaking is filed If the appellant fails to give the aforesaid undertaking to this Court within three weeks from today, the decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur dated September 24, 1986 shall become executable forthwith. It is also made clear that if the appellant defaults in payment of the amount for use and occupation as mentioned above for consecutive three months, the decree shall become executable forthwith. It is also made clear that if the appellant defaults in payment of the amount for use and occupation as mentioned above for consecutive three months, the decree shall become executable forthwith. There will be no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******