JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.2.1981 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur in Civil Appeal No. 17/80 whereby he partly allowed the appeal of the defendant-respondent and passed a conditional decree of eviction of defendant in favour of the plaintiff-appellant by modifying the judgment and decree of the lower court dated 27.1.1975 in Civil Suit No. 33/71 whereby suit for eviction filed by plaintiff was decreed. 2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for eviction in the lower court on the ground of bonafide necessity as well as default. It was pleaded that the defendant is a tenant in the disputed room since 1.1.1967 @ Rs.14/- per month. A rent note was also executed on 1.7.1967. It was pleaded that the defendant has failed to make the payment of monthly rent since 1.8.1969 and has committed a default. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff has reasonable and bonafide necessity of the disputed room as the plaintiff, is having only one residential room wherein he and his family members are residing. It was also pleaded that a notice dated 26th May, 1970 was given whereby the tenancy was terminated but the defendant failed to hand over the possession of the disputed room. 3. The defendant-respondent filed a written statement wherein he denied the contents of the plaint and it was pleaded that he has not committed any default in making the payment of rent. The bonafide necessity was also denied. It was pleaded that the plaintiff wants to increase the rent and when defendant refused to increase the rent, then the present suit was filed. 4. The learned lower court framed four issues. Issue No. 1 was relating to bona fide necessity of the plaintiff. Issue No. 2 was relating to default in making the payment of rent. Issue No. 3 was relating to notice and Issue No. 4 was about relief. In support of the case, the plaintiff examined PW-1 Allah Bux, PW-2 Amir Bux and PW3 Ahmad Bux. The defendant examined DW-1 Mohammad Bux, DW-2 Karim Bux and DW-3 Gaffar Khan. 5. The learned lower court, after hearing the arguments, vide its judgment and decree dated 27th January, 1975 decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for eviction. 6. The defendant examined DW-1 Mohammad Bux, DW-2 Karim Bux and DW-3 Gaffar Khan. 5. The learned lower court, after hearing the arguments, vide its judgment and decree dated 27th January, 1975 decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for eviction. 6. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by learned lower court, the defendant-respondent filed an appeal before first appellate court. 7. During the pendency of the first appeal before the first appellate court, the defendant filed an application dated 28.10.1975 under Section 13-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act of 1950). The learned first appellate court vide its order dated 28th May, 1976 framed an additional issue in respect of comparative hardship in view of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of Act of 1950. The first appellate court directed the learned lower court to take additional evidence in respect of newly framed issue regarding comparative hardship and to record the finding thereon and to send the same to the first appellate court alongwith complete file. The first appellate court also directed the learned lower court to dispose of the application of the defendant dated 28.10.1975 filed under Section 13-A of the Act of 1950. 8. The learned lower court disposed of the application dated 28.10.1975 under Section 13-A of the Act vide its order dated 5.5.1978. The lower court recorded additional evidence of both the parties on additional issue and vide its order dated 25.10.1979 decided the issue of comparative hardship in favour of the plaintiff. 9. After receipt of finding on additional issue No. 3-A from the lower court, the first appellate court heard the arguments on first appeal pending before it. The first appellate court vide its judgment dated 23rd February, 1981 partly allowed the appeal of defendant. The first appellate court held that in view of the order dated 5.5.1978 passed by lower court on the application under Section 13-A of the Act of 1950, the ground of default for eviction does not survive. The first appellate court also held that issue relating to the notice for eviction has become redundant in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 1745 . The first appellate court vide its impugned judgment decided issue No. 1 relating to bona fide necessity in favour of plaintiff. The first appellate court also held that issue relating to the notice for eviction has become redundant in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 1745 . The first appellate court vide its impugned judgment decided issue No. 1 relating to bona fide necessity in favour of plaintiff. However, the finding of the learned lower court in respect of issue No. 3-A relating to comparative hardship was modified that in case any other room which is available with plaintiff, is given to the defendant, then only the plaintiff will be entitled to get the defendant evicted from the disputed room. With the above modification, the first appellate court allowed the appeal of the defendant-respondent in part and while setting aside the judgment and decree of the lower court, passed an conditional decree in favour of the plaintiff that the plaintiff may give a room of his own choice to the defendant in lieu of the rented room, then only he will be entitled to get the defendant evicted from the rented room. 10. Being aggrieved with the conditional decree of eviction, the plaintiff-landlord filed this second appeal before this Court. This Court vide its order dated 29.6.1982 while admitting the second appeal, passed an order that following substantial question of law arises in this appeal: "Whether the first appellate court was justified in passing a conditional decree for eviction of the defendant-respondent on the ground that the plaintiff should provide him another room for residence, while the issue of comparative hardship has been found in favour of the plaintiff." 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the aforesaid conditional judgment and decree dated 23.2.1981 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur on the ground that there is no provision in Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 for passing conditional decree by directing the plaintiff-landlord to provide another room to the defendant in place of room sought to be evicted. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred the finding/order dated 25.10.1979 whereby learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (City North), Udaipur decided issue No. 3-A in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Magistrate after appreciating the statements of the plaintiff and plaintiff's witnesses recorded the finding that in case a decree for eviction is not passed, then greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff-landlord. The learned Magistrate after appreciating the statements of the plaintiff and plaintiff's witnesses recorded the finding that in case a decree for eviction is not passed, then greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff-landlord. During course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has read and made available certified copies of the statements of PW1 Allah Bux, PW2 Amir Mohammad, DW1 Mohammad Bux, DW2 Niyaz Mohammad recorded on the additional issue No. 3-A relating to comparative hardship. Learned counsel for the appellant has also read and made available certified copies of the statements recorded by the lower court of both the parties during trial of the suit. From statement of PW-1 Allah Bux dated 17.11.1976, it is clear that he was having only one room. Another room was with his step mother. He, his son and daughter all are living in one room. The elder son is of 25 years. He has also stated that wife of defendant Mohammad Bux is residing in village Sickalvas. The defendant has his own house and shop at Sickalvas. In cross-examination, PW1 Allah Bux has stated that Abbas is his tenant. There is no third floor in the house. In another Chhapra Wala room, his daughter is residing. He denied that his mother is residing in rented house. PW2 Amir Mohammad in his statement dated 26th March, 1977 has stated that he knows the plaintiff Allah Bux. He also knows the house of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has one son and two daughters. One daughter is unmarried. His son is 22 years of age. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has further referred the statement of DW-1 Mohammad Bux dated 2.8.1977 and statement of DW2 Niyaz Mohammad dated 2.8.1977 and submitted that even from their statements, it is not proved that the plaintiff has any other vacant room. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has further referred the judgment of this Court in Hanuman Das & Ors. v. Sanwal Ram RLR 1982 Page 916 and another case of Ramlal v. Girraj, 1992 (2) RLW Page 147 , wherein this Court has held that question of partial eviction need not to be considered when subject matter of suit is single shop or single apartment. The counsel for appellant has further placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Anandi Lal v. Smt. Sarju Devi & Ors., 2000 DNJ (Raj) 805. 14. The counsel for appellant has further placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Anandi Lal v. Smt. Sarju Devi & Ors., 2000 DNJ (Raj) 805. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court and argued that he is prepared to vacate the disputed room provided the plaintiff provides him another room in lieu of rented room. 15. I have considered the arguments of both the parties. I have also perused the pleadings of the parties as well as the statements of the plaintiff and defendant and their witnesses recorded during trial of the suit as well as on the additional issue No. 3-A relating to comparative hardship. 16. So far as issue No. 1 relating to bona fide necessity of the plaintiff himself or his family members of disputed room, is concerned, both the courts below have recorded a finding that the plaintiff is in need of the disputed room. It is relevant to mention that the said finding has not been challenged by the defendant-respondent by way of appeal or cross-objection. So far as question of comparative hardship of the disputed room is concerned, the learned lower court vide its order dated 25.10.1979 has decided the same in favour of the plaintiff and has held that in case the eviction decree is not passed, then greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff-landlord. 17. It is relevant to mention that while deciding the issue No. 1 relating to bona fide necessity vide its judgment dated 23rd February, 1981, the first appellate court has referred and considered a fact that plaintiff's son has also been married. The learned first appellate court has discussed the entire evidence including this fact of marriage of plaintiff's son which further establishes the bonafide requirement of the disputed room to the plaintiff. 18. The case of Hanuman Das & Ors. v. Sanwal Ram and Ram Lal v. Girraj as referred above cited by the counsel for the appellant, are not on the point as to whether conditional decree for eviction can be passed or not. 19. The learned lower court as well as first appellate court have discussed the entire evidence and recorded the finding that the plaintiff has reasonable bona fide necessity of the disputed room for himself and his family members. 19. The learned lower court as well as first appellate court have discussed the entire evidence and recorded the finding that the plaintiff has reasonable bona fide necessity of the disputed room for himself and his family members. Such finding recorded by first appellate court also confirms that the plaintiff is not having any other vacant room in his possession. The statement of PW1 and PW2 also show that no other vacant room was available with the plaintiff. In these circumstances, there was no occasion to pass a conditional decree. After examining the facts and evidence and finding of both the courts below in respect of issue No. 1, I am satisfied that learned first appellate court has committed an illegality in deciding the issue No. 3-A relating to comparative hardship in favour of the defendant and passing a conditional decree. There is no provision under Section 13 of the Act of 1950 for passing a conditional decree for eviction. There is a provision for eviction of the tenant on the ground of reasonable bonafide necessity under Section 13(1)(h) of the Act of 1950. However, Section 14(2) of the Act of 1950 says that no decree for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 shall be passed if the court is satisfied, that having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case including the question whether other reasonable accommodation is available to the landlord or the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. In the present case, both the courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff has reasonable bonafide necessity of the disputed room which includes that no other room is available with the plaintiff. In these circumstances, in case the impugned conditional decree is allowed to sustain, then it will amount to eviction of plaintiff-landlord from one room which is not permissible under the provisions of law and which is not the intention of the Legislature. If any vacant room would have been available, then certainly the issue No. 3 could have been decided against the plaintiff. Even on facts, I am satisfied that in case decree for eviction in the present case is not passed, then greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff-landlord. If any vacant room would have been available, then certainly the issue No. 3 could have been decided against the plaintiff. Even on facts, I am satisfied that in case decree for eviction in the present case is not passed, then greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff-landlord. I am satisfied that finding of the first appellate court in respect of issue No. 3-A is illegal and cannot be sustained. 20. The question of law framed by this Court is decided in favour of plaintiff-landlord. Therefore, I allow this appeal and set aside the conditional judgment and decree dated 23.2.1981 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur in Civil Appeal No. 17/80. The judgment and decree dated 27.1.1975 passed by lower court in Civil Suit No. 33/71 is restored. The defendant-respondent is granted two months' time to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed room to the plaintiff. There will be no order as to costs.Appeal Allowed - Decree of First Appeal Set Aside, and that of Trial Court Restored. *******