Judgment P. P. NAOLEKAR, J. ( 1 ) THE suit premises belongs to the respondent landlord and that is in occupation of the defendant-appellants (tenants ). There are two adjoining shops having two different numbers but separated by a stone wall, one is in the occupation of the respondent-landlord himself and the other in the occupation of the defendant- tenants, both shops owned by the respondent. As per Annex. P/8, the size of both the shops is 18 6" x 7 6". In one of the shops, the respondentlandlord is carrying on the business of making and selling shoes whereas in the adjoining shop the appellant-tenants are carrying on business. Admittedly the appellants are tenant in the demised premises. ( 2 ) THE respondent-landlord filed suit for ejectment of the appellants from the shop situated in the city of Jodhpur at Tabela Bazar, Sumer Market on the allegations that the shop was required by the landlord for the use of his son Devi Lal who would settle his business of selling skin from the demised premises. It is alleged that his son Devilal has passed the examination of 10th class and does not want to pursue his studies any further as he is desirous of starting the business of selling skin. The need of his son is genuine. It is further alleged that the plaintiff has a large family and it is difficult to maintain the family from the income derived from his business of making shoes and selling them. It is also alleged that if decree for ejectment is not granted the landlord will suffer hardship more thin the tenants. Devilal has acquired experience in the business by working beside him in his shop during his studies. There is no shop of skin in the nearby place and, therefore, for the business of sale of skin the shop is suitable. The other ground on which the ejectment was sought for is that the tenants have removed horizontal stone-slabs which were fixed in the shop for the purpose of putting goods in between the night of 15th and 16th September, 1976 without the permission of the landlord which has caused material alteration in the premises. Thus the landlord has sought ejectment under Section 13 (1) (h) and (c) of the Rajasthan Premies (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short, referred to hereinafter as the Act ). Thus the landlord has sought ejectment under Section 13 (1) (h) and (c) of the Rajasthan Premies (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short, referred to hereinafter as the Act ). ( 3 ) THE tenants filed written-statement and denied genuine requirement and alleged that the landlords requirement for his son of the premises is not reasonable and bona fide. The landlord has sufficient space in the premises, in which he is carrying on business and therein his son can be accommodated for his business. The tenant has a large family and their subsistence depends on the income derived from the shop. If the tenants are ejected from the suit premises, they will suffer hardship and thus comparative inconvenience will be more to the tenants if decree for ejectment is passed. ( 4 ) THE trial Court has dismissed the suit of the landlord on both the counts i. e. , the trial Court has not found the need to be genuine nor that the landlord has made out case under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act. The judgment as well as the decree of the trial Court was set aside by the first appellate Court on both grounds viz. , bona fide necessity of his son and material alteration. The first appellate Court has found that the landlord has proved the bona fide need of his son and that if ejectmentdecree is not granted the landlord shall suffer greater hardship than the tenant. The tenant has, without the permission of the landlord, made construction which has diminished the value of the accommodation. The Court has recorded the submissions of both the parties that decree for partial ejectment cannot be granted in this case. ( 5 ) SECTION 13 (i) (h) of the Act contemplates that if the landlord requires accommodation for the use and occupation of himself or his family and his need is reasonable and bona fide, the Court can grant decree in favour of the landlord. While granting the decree the Court shall see that having regard to all circumstances of the case including the question whether other reasonably alternative accommodation is available to the landlord or the tenant; greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. While granting the decree the Court shall see that having regard to all circumstances of the case including the question whether other reasonably alternative accommodation is available to the landlord or the tenant; greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. Therefore, the Court is also required to consider the comparative hardship aspect before passing the decree under Section 13 (1) (h) of the Act. ( 6 ) TO prove the fact of bona fide need the plaintiff has examined himself as P. W.- 1 Khuman Chand and stated that the shop adjacent to the demised premises belongs to him, where he makes and sells shoes. He does not have a very good sale. The members of his family are 8 to 10 in number. He does not have any source of income except the income derived from his shop and it is difficult to make two ends meet. He wants the suit strop to be vacated for his son to start the business in skin. His son has experience in the purchase of skin. His shop is suitable for the business of skin as there is no competition. For this business he will finance his son and some amount shall he raised through loans. He does not have any other shop than the shop held by the tenants. Devi lal P. W.-2 supported the statement of his father, when he has deposed, that his father is able to meet two ends with great difficulty and he wants to start his own business in the suit premises, which is most suitable for the said purpose. In the cross-examination the plaintiff-landlord has deposed that in his shop he does not hold the stock of more than 20-50 pairs of shoes. The sale of these shoes is very meagre. A portion of the shop is utilised by him and the rest of the shops space remains vacant but two business cannot he carried from one shop. The skin which is used for making shoes smells and, therefore, Devilal cannot carry on business from his shop. There is no extra space for accommodating the customers. Devilal has stated in cross- examination, that his fathers shop does not have sufficient space and, therefore, his business cannot be carried out from there. The skin which is used for making shoes smells and, therefore, Devilal cannot carry on business from his shop. There is no extra space for accommodating the customers. Devilal has stated in cross- examination, that his fathers shop does not have sufficient space and, therefore, his business cannot be carried out from there. The space required should he such that 10-15 persons can he accommodated and there should also he space for weighing which requires more space. P. W.-3 Han Ram has supported the statement of these witnesses. P. W.-4 Badrilal stated that plaintiffs son Devilal does not do any work. He is unemployed. Devilal cannot carry on business from his fathers shop. The tenant by examining the witnesses has contradicted the fact that the need of the plaintiff is genuine. It is further said that the plaintiff is using only a small portion of his shop and rest of the portion of the shop is vacant which can he utilised by his son Devilal for his own business. The business of his son can very conveniently he carried on from the premises in possession of the landlord. There is no need to get the shop vacated. ( 7 ) ON the basis of the statement of the plaintiff, that some space of his shop remains vacant, it has been contended by counsel for the appellants that the Court should have held that the business of the plaintiffs son of selling skin could he carried on from that space and, therefore, the need of the plaintiffs son is not genuine. It is true that the landlord has no unfettered right to get ejectment from whatever premises he wants and that too when he has some vacant space in his possession, which he would not occupy. But, at the same time, it would also he required to he seen whether the vacant space is reasonably suitable for the purpose for which ejectment from the accommodation is sought for. The words "reasonable requirement" undoubtedly postulate that theme must be an element of need as opposed to mere desire or wish. The connotation of the term need or requirement should not artificially he stretched nor should it he unduly stretched as to make it impossible or extremely difficult for the landlord to get decree of ejectment. The words "reasonable requirement" undoubtedly postulate that theme must be an element of need as opposed to mere desire or wish. The connotation of the term need or requirement should not artificially he stretched nor should it he unduly stretched as to make it impossible or extremely difficult for the landlord to get decree of ejectment. If such course is adopted the very purpose of the Act which offers the facility of eviction to the landlord on certain specified grounds would he defeated. It has come in the evidence that the landlord is using his accommodation. It is not the case of the tenants that the shop in which the landlord was carrying on business is vacant. The frontal portion of the shop is only 7 6". When the landlord is carrying on his business he would naturally he using the frontal portion of the shop. The nature of business indicates that he must he occupying most of the frontal portion. If the son would he required to carry on his business from the rear portion, it will not he possible for his customers to reach the inner portion of the premises without disturbing the landlord. Further, there is no ground to disbelieve the statement of Devilal that for his business he will require sufficient space wherein he can accommodate 10-15 persons. He would also require the space for weighing the skin and for spreading it for display to the customers. Further, as the landlord has said, that the skin which he uses has had odour which would certainly not be conducive for the business of his son. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the appellate Court has reached to the conclusion that the landlords need for his son is bona fide and genuine. I do not find any reason to set aside the finding arrived at by the Court. As regards the comparative hardship the Court has well-balanced the respective hardship pleaded by the landlord and tenants and has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff will suffer more hardship if the ejectment of the shop is not granted, as his unemployed son would not he provided with any employment and it would he difficult for him to maintain his family from the meagre income from his shop. ( 8 ) DURING the pendency of the appeal in this Court, the appellant-tenants moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27, C. P. C. read with Order 7 Rule 7, C. P. C. and Section 151, C. P. C. , contending that the plaintiffs son Devilal for whose alleged necessity the Shop in question is required has opened a factory at Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur for manufacturing heels of ladies sandals and shoes. He has started another business at Pratap Nagar of embroidery on skin and for the said purpose he has purchased several machines and employed 78 persons; and, thus the necessity if any, is no longer in subsistence. The application was opposed by the plaintiff - respondent on the ground that his another son Om Prakash is living at Pratap Nagar who has purchased the machines and his daughter-in-law is operating and supervising that business. The business was neither opened by Devilal nor managed by him. This Court, by order dated December 6, 1993, framed the following issue :"whether the reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit shop for the plaintiffs son Devilal no more exists as the latter has opened a factory for manufacturing heels of ladies shoes and sandals and has also started the business of embroidery on skin, at Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur ?" and remanded the matter to the Civil Judge, Jodhpur for recording additional evidence on the said issue and to return the evidence to this Court alongwith the finding. The trial Court recorded the evidence and sent the finding to this Court. ( 9 ) IT has been contended by counsel for the appellants that the evidence recorded on the issue framed clearly establishes that Devilal has opened new business and, therefore, his need no longer subsists. To prove the issue the tenants have examined Jethmal D. W.- 1, Kewal Chand D. W.-2, Fateh Raj D. W.-3, Mahendra Singh D. W.-4 and Khushal Das D. W.-5. Th fact is admitted by both the parties that there is a factory for manufacturing heels of ladies sandals and shoes. The question is only as to whom that factory belongs. Whether it belongs to Devilal or Smt. Geeta w/o Om Prakash. D. W.-- 1 Jethmal deposed that Devilal started this business in the year 1991. He has employed 7-8 persons. He is the owner of that business. The question is only as to whom that factory belongs. Whether it belongs to Devilal or Smt. Geeta w/o Om Prakash. D. W.-- 1 Jethmal deposed that Devilal started this business in the year 1991. He has employed 7-8 persons. He is the owner of that business. He further says that he has seen Devilal in the factory giving instructions to the labourers. He came to know from one Prahlad that Devilal is carrying on business of manufacturing wooden-heels. He has admitted that he has not seen any papers regarding this factory and information was given to him by certain persons who were working nearby the factory. D. W.-2 Kewal Chand stated that he saw Devilal supervising the work of the factory and instructing the labourers. He has not talked with Devilal. He came to know from nearby shop owners that the factory belongs to Devilal. He supervises it. D. W.-3 Fateh Raj states that he saw many a time Devilal going to the factory and, on that basis, he presumed that the factory belongs to Devilal. The factory belonged to Devilal is an inference drawn by these witnesses on the basis of presence of Devilal at the factory and giving instructions to the labourers and, on the basis of the information received from certain persons who have not been examined. Admittedly, they have not seen any document nor verified the fact of ownership from any other official document. On the other hand, Om Prakash deposed that the factory at Pratap Nagar is run by his wife Geeta Devi and Devilal has no connection with the factory. He has purchased the machines to manufacture heels. The bill thereof is P. W.-5/1 which stands in the name of Om Prakash. The payment of Octroi is evident from the receipt P. W. 5/2. Sales tax receipt is P. W-5/3. P. W.-5/4 is cash-memo of other spare parts purchased and required for fitting the machine. Ex.-P. W.-5/5 is a bill of purchase of motor for running the machine. The transport-receipt for bringing the machine is Ex.-P. W.-5/6. All these documents are in the name of Om Prakash, husband of Geeta Devi. The documentary evidence thus shows that machines fitted for manufacturing of heels was purchased by Om Prakash and steps were taken by him for setting up the factory and not by Devilal. The transport-receipt for bringing the machine is Ex.-P. W.-5/6. All these documents are in the name of Om Prakash, husband of Geeta Devi. The documentary evidence thus shows that machines fitted for manufacturing of heels was purchased by Om Prakash and steps were taken by him for setting up the factory and not by Devilal. Devilals presence at the brothers factory sometimes and giving instructions to labourers working therein do not establish that Devilal is owner of the factory. Another allegation is that Devilal is carrying on business of embroidery on skin. To prove this fact Jethmal has stated that this work is being carried out from two houses and Devilal is the owner of the same. He has seen 6- 7 persons working on the job and it was supervised by Devilal. His neighbours informed him that the work is being carried out by Devilal. Kewal Chand, D. W.-2 has stated that Devilal is carrying on business of skin. He was informed by one Jugal Kirana Stores-wala that Devilal is engaged in the business of skin-embroidery. The fact of Devilals carrying on business of skin-embroidery is based on information supplied to the witness by other persons. These other persons have not been examined. There is nothing on record to indicate that any papers were examined by the witnesses before arriving at the conclusion that Devilal is carrying on this business. There is nothing on record to establish that the houses from where the business is being carried out belongs to Devilal. The evidence of the tenants has been refuted by Khuman Chand landlord. The entire scrutiny of the evidence does not inspire any confidence to reach to the conclusion that Devilal was carrying on business of manufacturing wooden-heels of ladies sandals and shoes and that of embroidery on skin. ( 10 ) THE lower appellate Court has also granted decree under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act on the finding that the plaintiff-landlord has proved removal of the stone-slabs fixed to the wall and that has resulted in diminishing of the value of the property. There is no evidence on record on the basis of which this finding can be arrived at. Simply because stone-slabs fixed to the wall of the shop where goods could be kept are removed, the value of the shop would not be diminished. There is no evidence on record on the basis of which this finding can be arrived at. Simply because stone-slabs fixed to the wall of the shop where goods could be kept are removed, the value of the shop would not be diminished. The value of the shop does not depend on such a small provision made for keeping the material. The decree of the lower appellate Court on this count is set aside. ( 11 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the appellants have failed to prove that the need of the plaintiff is not genuine and they will suffer more hardship if ejectment decree is granted. Accordingly, the decree of ejectment passed under Section 13 (1) (h) of the Act by the lower appellate Court is maintained and the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/ -. Appeal dismissed.