JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The original suit was filed by the plaintiff-landlord claiming eviction of the tenant and possession of the rented premises on the ground of bonafide use of those premises for personal use of the landlord and his son. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Appeal under Section 96 of the Civil C.P.C. by the unsuccessful defendant was dismissed by the appellate Court. Hence, this second appeal. 3. The suit as filed by the plaintiff was based on the allegation that the plaintiff needed the rented premises for the bonafide use of himself and his son and, for that purpose, it is necessary that the tenant is evicted from the premises. This allegation of the landlord was denied by the tenant, who claimed that the need is not genuine and prayed for dismissal of the suit as aforesaid. The learned trial Judge has arrived at finding in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The appellate Court maintained the finding. Thus, decree based on concurrent finding of fact is under challenge in this appeal. 4. When the matter came up for admission before this Court, the appeal was admitted on the following questions of law:- "1. Whether when the plaintiff's case itself was that after the shop is vacated, he will include in it the other portion in which cycle business is being done and divide in two parts, in one he will run his cycle business and in the other photo studio, then whether with the finding of the learned trial Court and appellate Court that the need for cycle business has come to an end as a result of the death of the plaintiff, then whether the finding of the Court that hardship would be caused to the plaintiff in case the shop is not vacated, can be sustained ? 2. 2. Whether under the proviso of sub-section (2) of 14 of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act in case there is only one shop and the Court comes to a finding that the need of the plaintiff is only of half portion of the shop, then whether the Court can grant a decree for eviction for the entire shop or should grant a decree for eviction for only the part of the shop ? 3. Whether the burden of proof on the issue of comparative hardship having been wrongly placed on the tenant, the finding of fact arrived at on that count is bad in law and as such vitiated ?" 5. The appeal came up for final hearing on 15.5.1997. It was contended before this Court that the question of comparative hardship was not gone into and it was not considered whether the hardship to the defendant by eviction would be lesser or greater than hardship to the plaintiff by denial of eviction. Hence, by even dated order this Court remitted the matter on that issue to the appellate Court and called for its finding. The appellate Court in accordance with the directions of this Court considered the matter and remitted its finding in favour of the landlord and, thus, fortifying the finding already given in this case by the Courts below. 6. The first question as framed above basically deals with facts. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died and was substituted by his son. It is claimed, therefore, whether after the death of the plaintiff, the need of the plaintiff could be considered for grant of decree as was done by the courts below. This question of law requires, therefore, adjudication on the facts as they exist. From the averments made in the plaint, it will be seen that the total dimension of the premises in question is approximately 40 to 50 square feet and the plaintiff is in his possession 24 square feet of land (6 x 4) in which he was running his cycle shop. He claimed that he wants the shop and the entire rented area so that he can extend his cycle shop and also for setting up a photo studio for his son. This need was found on evidence to be genuine. Hence, the decree was passed. He claimed that he wants the shop and the entire rented area so that he can extend his cycle shop and also for setting up a photo studio for his son. This need was found on evidence to be genuine. Hence, the decree was passed. The question is whether after the death of the plaintiff, it can be said that the need of his son must stand diminished. The tenant appellant has not assailed the finding with regard to that part of the premises which is needed for extension of the cycle business. All that is pleaded in appeal is, therefore, the correctness of the finding that after the death of the father, the decree must be reduced accordingly. I see no substance in this submission. The plaintiff having established the need for entire premises in possession of the tenant for photo studio of his son and for his own need of cycle shop, cannot be deprived of the benefit at a later stage because the plaintiff died. The premises are very small and even if the entire premises are used by the son of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that his demand is mala fide or in any manner unreasonable. It cannot be said that by reason of the death, the need is reduced. The need was joint and several of the plaintiff and his son. It was not specified anywhere that so many square feet would be required for cycle shop and so many square feet would be required for photo studio. It cannot, therefore, be said that after the death, the needed for the plaintiff having diminished, the entire premises cannot be given to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, I also answer the first question in affirmative and hold that the finding of the learned trial Judge as affirmed by the appellate Court that hardship would be caused to the plaintiff in case the shop is not vacated is liable to be sustained. 7. That takes me to the second question framed and noted above. This question relates to partial eviction. Section 14(2) of the Act provides that where the need of the tenant or the landlord can be satisfied by partial eviction, the decree only for that much area should be passed. 7. That takes me to the second question framed and noted above. This question relates to partial eviction. Section 14(2) of the Act provides that where the need of the tenant or the landlord can be satisfied by partial eviction, the decree only for that much area should be passed. As will be seen from the order dated 15.5.1997 the matter was remitted to the appellate Court for consideration on that issue and the finding has been received in favour of the plaintiff. Apart from the finding as received from the appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff, it is obvious that in the present case, provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act are no bar. The premises are so small that the question of the plaintiff's need being satisfied by partial eviction cannot arise. In my opinion, therefore, the grant of decree of eviction for entire shop is legal and it does not violate the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14 and cannot in any manner be said to be illegal. 8. That takes me to the third question regarding burden of proof as stated above. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant placed reliance on several judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court of India in support of his contention that in such cases, the burden of proof is always on the plaintiff and does not shift. From perusal of the decisions, it is obvious that the proposition is correct. The burden of proof cannot shift. The plaintiff has to prove comparative hardship on him. The plaintiff has to prove that the hardship to be caused on him is greater and harsher than that which may be caused to the defendant tenant. In my opinion, there is no such shifting of burden of proof in this case. No doubt certain observations have been made by the trial Court in this regard but that does not have the effect of shifting the burden. In any event, after the matter was remitted to the appellate Court by the order dated 15.5.1997 and the finding was reaffirmed by the appellate Court, the question loses its significance. It has been found by the Court that the hardship caused to the plaintiff by non-eviction would be greater than the hardship caused to the tenant by eviction. The question is, accordingly, answered. It has been found by the Court that the hardship caused to the plaintiff by non-eviction would be greater than the hardship caused to the tenant by eviction. The question is, accordingly, answered. The finding is this regard in favour of the plaintiff is affirmed. 9. In view of my findings on the questions referred to above, the appeal must fail and is accordingly, dismissed with costs. Interim stay, if any, of execution of the decree, is vacated.Appeal dismissed. *******