JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated May 24, 1984 by which the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits and ejectment has been decreed. The facts of the case giving rise to the appeal may be summarised thus.On August 12, 1981, the plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits and ejectment on the grounds of reasonable and bonafide necessity and using demised premises inconsistent with the purpose for which it was let out with the allegations, in short, as follows. Only July 22, 1971, the defendant No. 1 took the suit building situated outside Siwanchi Gate, Jodhpur on monthly rent of Rs. 800/- for opening its branch (Unit No. 2). There is no other house in the city of Jodhpur for his residence. Presently, he is living with his father in his house situated at Kahanda Falsa, Jodhpur. It is a highly congested area of Jodhpur city. He is Head of the Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Units. His family consists of himself, his wife, one son and two daughters. He has two rooms only for the use of his family in the said house of his father. It is very difficult to take car there and bring it there from. He has scarcity of fresh air there. It is not possible to have a garden there. He is not able to bring up and educate his children to his entire satisfaction. As such the suit premises is reasonably and bonafide required by him for his residence. On the other hand, the defendants have constructed a building at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur and have shifted their said branch (Unit No. 2) there and the suit premises is lying vacant. He would suffer greater hardship if the suit is not decreed and the defendants would not suffer any hardship or inconvenience as they have already shifted their branch from the suit premises to their said newly constructed building. They have no justification to retain the suit premises and open any other office therein. They have not vacated it despite several demands and registered notices. 2. They have no justification to retain the suit premises and open any other office therein. They have not vacated it despite several demands and registered notices. 2. On September 6, 1981, the plaintiff moved an application, paper No. B 16/1-2, for amendment of the plaint to incorporate the plea that he is also entitled to get the decree for ejectment on the ground mentioned in Section 13(1)(j) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 as on March 01, 1981 the defendants have shifted their branch from the suit premises to their newly constructed building situated at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur and have kept locked the suit premises since then without any reasonable cause. On October 3, 1981 the defendants filed their reply to the said application admitting that the said branch has been shifted to the said newly constructed building and stating that the suit premises is still being used by them. After hearing the parties, the application was allowed and the plaintiff was permitted to amend his plaint accordingly. Accordingly, amended plaint was filed. 3. In their written-statement, the defendants admit that the suit premises was taken on monthly rent of Rs. 800/- in July 1971, the rent was regularly paid by the defendant No. 2 on behalf of the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff's notice of ejectment was duly received by them. The remaining allegations of the plaint have been denied. 3. In their written-statement, the defendants admit that the suit premises was taken on monthly rent of Rs. 800/- in July 1971, the rent was regularly paid by the defendant No. 2 on behalf of the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff's notice of ejectment was duly received by them. The remaining allegations of the plaint have been denied. It has further been averred by them that the defendant No. 2 has unnecessarily been impleaded in the suit, the object and purpose of the rent control legislation would be set at naught if the contention of the plaintiff is allowed to prevail, plaintiff is living quite comfortably in his present house, location of the Unit No. 2 at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur has no relevancy in judging the question of hardship, suit premises is not lying vacant but it is being used for the need of the defendant No. 1, it is not the plaintiff's need but his greed which has brought the suit as it is a matter of common knowledge that the vacant premises fetch more rent than the rent paid by sitting tenants apart from ex gratia payment and it would be putting strain on one's credibility to accept the story that the plaintiff who is the only son of his father really needs the premises and desires to live separately from his father as an ungrateful son to cater to his luxurious habits. On July 13, 1992 the trial Court framed the following issues : (Omitted being in vernacular). 4. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 his father Shri Ram Ratan, P.W. 2, Incharge, Blood Bank, Jodhpur, Dr. Harikishan Dhoot, P.W. 3, Professor & Head, Department of Orthopaedics Dr. J.C. Sharma, P.W. 4, Driver of the M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur Raghunath Singh, PW5, Professor & Head, Department of Medicines cum Superintendent, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, Dr. K. Bannerji, P.W. 6 and Ramdas Singha P.W. 7 besides producing and proving 19 documents. The defendants have examined Branch Manager Shri Gulab Chand Golechha, D.W. 1 and Regional Manager Shri Radhey Shyam, D.W. 2 and have filed and proved two documents. After hearing the parties, the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled to the rent of the months of June & July, 1981 and mesne profits from August 1, 1981 at the rate of Rs. After hearing the parties, the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled to the rent of the months of June & July, 1981 and mesne profits from August 1, 1981 at the rate of Rs. 800 per month, he needs the suit reasonably and bonafide, he would suffer greater hardship if decree is not passed in his favour and he is not entitled to decree for ejectment on the ground mentioned in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rent Control Act as the suit has been filed within six months of the non-user of the suit premises. 5. On October 7, 1985, this appeal was admitted and the trial Court was directed to consider the question of partial eviction after taking the evidence of the parties. On 2.11.1985, the plaintiff also filed cross-objections against the judgment of the trial Court refusing decree of ejectment on the ground mentioned on clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. In compliance with the said order dated October 7, 1985, the trial Court recorded the statement of the plaintiff Dr. Om prakash, P.W. 1 and Shri Harikrishnan, D.W. 2. The site plan of the suit premises Ex. A/3 was produced and proved by the defendants. After hearing the parties, the trial Court recorded its finding that partial eviction of the suit premises is not possible by its order dated March 13, 1986.It is contended by learned counsel for the defendant-appellants that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record, material evidence on record has been overlooked, findings on issue No. 1 & 2 are based on conjectures and surmises, plaintiff admits in his statement on oath that the suit house is much bigger than his requirement and this admission is sufficient for holding that his need would be satisfied from a part of the suit premises. He further contended that the plaintiff is the only son of his old father, he is doctor by profession, it is not believable that he would leave his old father and live separately, and it is unbelievable that he wants to shift from his father's house for the reason that it is situated in a congested locality. He further contended that the plaintiff is the only son of his old father, he is doctor by profession, it is not believable that he would leave his old father and live separately, and it is unbelievable that he wants to shift from his father's house for the reason that it is situated in a congested locality. He further contended that keeping a car in a garage close to his house cannot be a ground for ejectment as in big cities garages are mostly available at distant places. He also contended that the plaintiff has sufficient accommodation at his disposal in his father's house. He lastly contended that the learned trial Court has rightly refused to grant ejectment on the ground mentioned in clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rent Control Act as suit as admittedly filed within six months of the alleged non-user of the suit premises. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent duly supported the judgment under appeal so far as it has decreed the suit on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. He contended that the trial Court failed to consider that the ground mentioned in clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act arose subsequently, amendment application was moved to incorporate it in the plaint and the plaint was accordingly amended. He also contended that the need of the plaintiff has further increased on account of the subsequent events, namely, his son has now become a doctor, he is going to be married, the plaintiff himself has become Superintendent, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur and his younger daughter is now studying in college. 7. Admittedly, the suit premises was taken on rent by the defendants on July 22, 1971, since then the said branch (Unit No. 2) of the defendants functioned in it, a new building at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur was constructed by the defendants and the said branch has been shifted therein in the year 1981. 7. Admittedly, the suit premises was taken on rent by the defendants on July 22, 1971, since then the said branch (Unit No. 2) of the defendants functioned in it, a new building at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur was constructed by the defendants and the said branch has been shifted therein in the year 1981. On 29.9.1981, the plaintiff moved application, paper No. B 16/1-2, under Order 41 Rule 17, CPC to incorporate averments that on 1.3.1981 the defendants have shifted their branch from the suit premises to the newly constructed building situated at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, since then the suit premises is lying vacant and locked and as such the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for ejectment on the ground mentioned in clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. This application was allowed and amended plaint was duly filed. In their reply dated 3.10.1981, paper No. B 17/1-2, the defendants admitted that they have shifted the office of the Unit No. 2 to the newly constructed building situated at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. It has also been stated in it that the suit premises is still being used by them. In para No. 5(c) of their written-statement dated 4.2.1982, it has simply been stated that the suit premises is not lying vacant and it is being used by the defendant No. 1. It is thus clear that neither in the said reply to the amendment application nor in the written-statement specific use to which it was put was not mentioned. It has nowhere been stated that Carrier Agents Branch has been opened therein. This ground came into existence after the institution of the suit as a subsequent event. The crucial date for counting the period of six months as required under Section 13(1)(j) of the Act would be the date on which the said application, paper Nos. B-16/1-2, was moved i.e. September 2, 1981 or in any case the date on which the amended plaint was filed i.e. 17.10.1981. Reference of B. Banerji v. Anita Pan, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1146 may be made here. B-16/1-2, was moved i.e. September 2, 1981 or in any case the date on which the amended plaint was filed i.e. 17.10.1981. Reference of B. Banerji v. Anita Pan, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1146 may be made here. Shri Gulab Chand D.W. 1 has stated in his cross-examination that the branch (Unit No. 2) was shifted from the suit premises to the newly constructed building at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur on March 2, 1981, the carrier agents branch was started in the suit premises in November, 1982 and no special work was done in the suit premises after the office of the said branch (Unit No. 2) was shifted therefrom and the carrier branch was started therein. Shri Radhey Shyam D.W. 2 has disclosed in his cross-examination that carrier agents branch was started for the first time in Jodhpur in the suit premises in October, 1981. It is thus well-proved that the suit premises was not used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which it was let out for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date on which the application for amendment, paper No. B 16/1-2, was moved or the amended plaint was filed. The trial Court should have, therefore, decreed the suit on this ground also. 8. Now the questions for consideration are whether the suit premises is reasonably and bonafide required by the plaintiff for his residences, he would suffer greater hardship if the decree of ejectment is not passed and no hardship would be caused to either party by the partial eviction of the defendants from the suit premises. 9. Admittedly, the plaintiff Dr. Om Prakash Garg, P.W. 1 is the Head of the Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Units and Superintendent, Mahatama Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, he is presently residing with his family in his father's house situated at Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur, he does not own any other residential building at Jodhpur except the suit premises which is a bungalow, he maintains a car and he is required to go to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital Jodhpur in night on emergency calls. The following facts are also well-proved from the evidence on record:- (i) The plaintiff's family consists of five members : plaintiff his wife, two daughters and a son. (ii) The plaintiff's son got admission in MBBS is the year 1983 (vide statement of plaintiff dated 3.1.1986). The following facts are also well-proved from the evidence on record:- (i) The plaintiff's family consists of five members : plaintiff his wife, two daughters and a son. (ii) The plaintiff's son got admission in MBBS is the year 1983 (vide statement of plaintiff dated 3.1.1986). By this time, he must have done MBBS. He has attained marriageable age now. (iii) In the year 1986, the plaintiff's elder daughter was in B.Sc. II year and the younger daughter was in high school. (iv) The plaintiff has only two rooms at his disposal in his father's house. He has no drawing room (vide statement of Dr. J.C. Sharma P.W. 4) and no dining room (vide statement of Dr. K. Banarji P.W. 6). There is neither any garage nor any space for a garden in it. para (v) His father's house in which he is at present residing is situated in the midst of the most crowded locality of the city of Jodhpur. Cars have to be parked at a great distance therefrom. Dr. J.C. Sharma, P.W. 4 has deposed that when he goes to the house of Dr. O.P. Garg, he leaves his car near the bungalow of Mr. Justice Chungani and therefrom, he goes on foot as the traffic near the plaintiff's residence is very much and the locality is greatly congested. Similarly, Dr. K. Banerji, P.W. 6 has deposited that as and when he goes to the residence of Dr. O.P. Garg, he parks his vehicle in the Ayurvedic Hospital on account of unmanageable traffic near his residence. (vi) Plaintiff's father Shri Ram Ratan P.W. 2 retired from the post of Settlement Officer. He is a heart patient. He is disturbed in his sleep when bell is used in the night to take the plaintiff to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital to attend emergency. He also wants that his son (Dr. O.P. Garg) should live separately from him. 10. Dr. J.C. Sharma, P.W. 4 and Dr. K. Banerji, P.W. 6 have deposed that the accommodation at the disposal of the plaintiff in his father's house is highly inadequate. Dr. K. Bannerji P.W. 6 has also deposed that the status of the plaintiff is quite high, a man of his status should have a suitable house consisting of a drawing room a dining room, a consultation room, a guest-room and two bed-rooms for himself and his children. Dr. K. Bannerji P.W. 6 has also deposed that the status of the plaintiff is quite high, a man of his status should have a suitable house consisting of a drawing room a dining room, a consultation room, a guest-room and two bed-rooms for himself and his children. He also deposed that twice in a year external examiners come and stay and due to dearth of accommodation in his house, the plaintiff once served food in the 'chowk'. The defendants witnesses Shri Gulab Chand, D.W. 1, Shri Radhey Shyam, D.W. 2 and Harkishan Chandanani, D.W. 3 have not said anything on these points. The plaintiff's evidence has gone unrebutted. There is no reason to disbelieve his statement and also the statements of his witnesses. In view of these facts and circumstances, it can well be said that the learned trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff requires the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for the residence of his family and he would suffer greater hardship if the decree for ejectment is not passed in his favour. 11. As already observed above by order dated October 7, 1985, this Court directed the trial Court to consider the question of partial eviction after taking evidence of the parties. The trial Court recorded the evidence of the parties which was produced by them and has returned the record with its findings that partial eviction of the defendants from the suit premises would cause hardship to both the parties and is not possible. A great stress has been laid by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant on the statement of the plaintiff Dr. Om Prakash, P.W. 1 dated 26.8.1982 wherein he admitted that the suit house contains accommodation more than what is required by him. This statement was given by the plaintiff on August 26, 1982 when his son did not even got admission in MBBS course, he got his admission in the year 1983, during the arguments, it was disclosed that he has done MBB and is to be married soon. It is stated in ground No. 7 of the memorandum of appeal as under:- "There are five rooms, one kitchen, one store-room, three latrines and bath-rooms, two under-grounds and one garage on the ground floor of the suit house. It is stated in ground No. 7 of the memorandum of appeal as under:- "There are five rooms, one kitchen, one store-room, three latrines and bath-rooms, two under-grounds and one garage on the ground floor of the suit house. On the first floor there are three rooms, one kitchen, one store and one latrine-bath." It has come in evidence and is also clear from the site-plan Ex. A/3 produced by the defendants that the first floor of the suit premises is approachable through ground-floor only as there is no independent approach for it. It is significant to note that the site-plan Ex. A/3 has not given the measurements of smaller rooms. It has given measurements of his rooms only. Building like suit premises is divisible floor-wise in two parts i.e., ground-floor and the first-floor. The allotment of ground-floor to the plaintiff and the first floor to the defendants would be highly inconvenient in both the parties. The defendants' staff and persons coming to the defendants' office will have to pass through the ground-floor invading the privacy of its occupants and disturbing them every time, and the first floor may also be insufficient to the defendants. In the reverse position, the accommodation in the first-floor would not meet all necessary requirements of the plaintiff. It is not the case of the defendants that their requirement would be fulfilled if the rooms opening towards the road situated in the ground-floor are given to them and the remaining portions of the suit premises may be given to the plaintiff. The learned trial Court has rightly held that partial eviction of the suit premises will neither fulfil the reasonable and bonafide requirements of the plaintiff nor it would be free from hardship. The Life Insurance Corporation has huge money at its disposal. It gives loans for construction activities. It is not difficult for it to construct a premises for its office. There is also nothing on the record to indicate that the Carrier Agents Branch cannot be accommodated in the other bungalows in occupation of the defendants at Jodhpur. 12. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and cross-objection is allowed with costs. The suit for ejectment of the defendants is also decreed on the ground mentioned in clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. 12. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and cross-objection is allowed with costs. The suit for ejectment of the defendants is also decreed on the ground mentioned in clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. The defendants are given time upto June 30, 1991 to deliver the actual and physical possession of the suit premises provided they pay the entire arrears of rent, mesne profits upto June 30, 1991 and costs of the suit and appeal through account-payee draft in the name of the plaintiff and file an undertaking before the trial Court that during this period they will not part with the possession of the suit premises and will deliver its actual physical possession to the plaintiff by or on June 30, 1991 within one month from today.Appeal dismissed with costs. *******