Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1707 (RAJ)

Laxman Das v. Sultana Ram

2005-07-05

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2005
Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-This second appeal by the defendant tenant has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 28.07.1980 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Appeal No. 1/1980 whereby the learned Appellate Court reversed the decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-respondents on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. 2. Somewhat peculiar facts and circumstances are involved for consideration in this appeal in view of the order of admission passed by this Court on 111.1980 and, therefore, it shall be appropriate to relate to the back ground facts. 3. The respondents, Sultana Ram, Harchand Ram, Ad Ram and Daya Ram are brothers and co-owners of a property situated at Dhan Mandi, Sri Ganganagar which has been referred as “Dukan No. 1”. In fact this property is not one shop as its name suggests but is a comparatively bigger property comprised of different compartments. Its measurement has been stated to be 70 x 20. On the northern portion of this property of Dukan No. 1, the plaintiffs had four shops which were let out to different tenants. The appellant Laxman Das is one of those tenants. It appears that the plaintiffs were carrying on joint business and were in use and occupation of the remaining part of this property of Dukan No. 1. 4. The plaintiffs filed four separate suits against four tenants in the aforesaid four shops, namely, Shri Ganga Ram, Shri Ramsharan Das, Shri Nand Lal and Shri Laxman Das. All the four suits were filed for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the accommodation on account of expansion of their business as brokers and so also for a show room of their fertilizer/manure business. All the four suits including the suit filed against the appellant (Civil Suit No. 55/1973) were decided by the Additional Munsif , Sri Ganganagar on 210.1975. It appears that the trial Court did not accept the case of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the plaintiffs in respect of any of the four shops including the shop in question in the present case and dismissed the suits. 5. In the appeals filed by the plaintiffs, the Appellate Court remitted the issue of comparative hardship to the trial Court which was also answered by the trial Court against the plaintiffs on 011.1979. 5. In the appeals filed by the plaintiffs, the Appellate Court remitted the issue of comparative hardship to the trial Court which was also answered by the trial Court against the plaintiffs on 011.1979. Thereafter, the appeals were heard and the first Appellate Court, Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar reversed all the four decrees after holding in favour of the plaintiffs that their reasonable and bona fide requirement was established and also that the plaintiffs would suffer greater hardship if the decree for eviction was refused. As aforesaid, the appeal concerning the present case being Civil Appeal No. 1/1980 was allowed on 28.07.1980. 6. All the four tenants against whom decree for eviction was passed by the first Appellate Court, preferred separate second appeals before this Court and the plaintiff respondents appeared in caveat. All the four appeals were heard together for admission on 111.1980 and this Court passed a common order in relation to all the four appeals. While two Civil Second Appeals being No. 200/80, Ganga Ram vs. Sulatana Ram and No. 201/80, Ramsharan Das vs. Sulatana Ram were dismissed, at the same time, the present one No. 199/80, Laxman Das vs. Sultana Ram & Anr. appeal No. 202/80, Nand Lal vs. Sultana Ram were admitted, largely for the reason that this Court was satisfied at the time of admission that the reasonable and bona fide requirement at least for two shops was amply established and, therefore, the Counsel for the plaintiffs was asked as to which of the two shops he would prefer to get vacated and it was on indication of his preference for the shops in possession of Ganga Ram and Ram Sharan Das that their appeals were immediately dismissed, finding no substantial question of law. However, then the question was as to whether the requirement would still subsist after getting these two shops and therefore, the present appeal of Laxman Das and the appeal of Nand Lal were admitted. 7. As the considerations hereinafter would take their shape and colour from this order of admission passed on 111.1980, it is considered appropriate to reproduce the same in extenso : “111.1980 Honble Mr. Dwarka Prasad, J. Mr. V.N. Vyas for the Appellants: Mr. H.M. Parekh, for the Respondents: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 7. As the considerations hereinafter would take their shape and colour from this order of admission passed on 111.1980, it is considered appropriate to reproduce the same in extenso : “111.1980 Honble Mr. Dwarka Prasad, J. Mr. V.N. Vyas for the Appellants: Mr. H.M. Parekh, for the Respondents: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The plaintiffs Sultana Ram, Harchand Ram, Adram and Daya Ram are brothers and are carrying on business jointly in the town of Ganganagar. They have got four shops besides the one already in their possession. These four shops were given on rent to Ganga Ram, Ramsharandas, Nandlal and Laxman Das. The plaintiffs filed four separate suits against the aforesaid four tenants for ejectment on the ground of bona fide the reasonable requirement of the shops for their three business, viz. Kachcha arat business, which they are carrying on at present, `pucca arat business, which they intend to start and business of fertilizers which they have started recently. According to the plaintiffs they require all the four shops for the purpose of their aforesaid business, which according to them could not be carried out in the only shop which is in their possession at present. The trial Court held that the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs was not proved in respect of any of the shops. However, the first Appellate Court found that the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs was proved in respect of all the four shops. The learned Additional District Judge, while deciding the appeals, also held that the plaintiffs would suffer greater hardship if the suits for ejectment were not decreed than that would be suffered by the defendant-tenants. All the four tenants have filed appeals in this Court. Learned Counsel for the appellants has taken me through the relevant portions of the evidence on record. The plaintiffs do require a shop for their `pucca arat business and they intend to construct a show room for carrying on their fertilizer business. Thus, the bona fide and reasonable requirement, at least for two shops has been fully proved by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs do require a shop for their `pucca arat business and they intend to construct a show room for carrying on their fertilizer business. Thus, the bona fide and reasonable requirement, at least for two shops has been fully proved by the plaintiffs. As the four shops are situated in the same Bazar adjoining each other the plaintiffs learned Counsel was asked as to which of the two shops he would prefer to get vacated, and he indicated preference for the shops in possession of tenants Gangaram and Ramsharan Das, which are situated adjoining the shops which is already in possession of the plaintiffs. The first Appellate Court has rightly held the requirement of the plaintiffs proved in respect of these two shops and has held the issue of comparative hardship in favour of the plaintiffs. As such the appeals : No. 200/80 Gangaram vs. Sultana Ram & Ors., and No. 201/80; Ramsharan Das vs. Sultanaram & Ors. are dismissed as no substantial question of law arises in these two appeals. Both the appellants are, however, allowed four months time to vacate the shops in dispute. However, the question would arise as to whether the plaintiffs have still a bona fide and reasonable requirement for the remaining two shops, even if the suits in respect of other two shops have been decreed and as such the two remaining appeals : No. 199/80 : Laxmandas vs. Sultanaram & Ors. and No. 202/80 : Nandlal vs. Sultanaram & Ors. are admitted. Mr. Hastimal accepted notice on behalf of the respondents and as such fresh notices need not be issued in the circumstances.” 8. Although specifically no substantial question of law has been formulated as such but it is apparent from the pith and substance of the order of admission that the only question of law on which this appeal was admitted was as to whether the plaintiffs have still a bona fide and reasonable requirement for the remaining two shops even if the suits in respect of other two shops have been decreed? It could at once be noted that so far the findings of the first Appellate Court on the merits of the case about the plaintiffs establishing their reasonable and bona fide requirement for the alleged business and expansion of the same are concerned, the same have not been put to any issue or question in this appeal. It could at once be noted that so far the findings of the first Appellate Court on the merits of the case about the plaintiffs establishing their reasonable and bona fide requirement for the alleged business and expansion of the same are concerned, the same have not been put to any issue or question in this appeal. The only question involved is to consider the extent of the premises needed for the requirement which stands established. 9. While admitting the appeal on 111.1980, the eviction of the appellant from the suit shop was stayed till the disposal of the appeal. However, hearing of the appeal was expedited. In view of the expedite order, after receipt of the record, this appeal was listed for hearing in the category of early hearing cases and came up for consideration on 010.1987 when the same was adjourned. But before the matter was taken up again, a relevant development took place. 10. In the other appeal No. 202/1980 of Nand Lal, an application was filed on behalf of the appellant tenant on 010.1987 that under a compromise, the said appellant Nand Lal had handed over vacant possession of the disputed shop to the respondents and the appeal was prayed to be dismissed as not pressed. This application was taken up by the Court on 110.1987 and the said appeal No. 202/1980 was dismissed as not pressed. So, the scenario available then was that not two but three shops out of the four were got in possession by the plaintiffs. 11. The present appellant Laxman Das moved an application on 111.1987 with the submission that no issue for partial eviction was framed in this case as required by second part of Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as `the Act) and also that now the plaintiffs had received possession of three shops and, therefore, the question arises as to whether the plaintiffs still have a bona fide and reasonable requirement for the remaining one shop occupied by the appellant? It was prayed that the case be remanded for evidence and finding on the question of partial eviction. However, both the learned Counsel for the parties submitted on 012.1987 that the said application dated 111.1987 can be disposed of alongwith hearing of the appeal and accordingly the appeal was posted for hearing. 12. It was prayed that the case be remanded for evidence and finding on the question of partial eviction. However, both the learned Counsel for the parties submitted on 012.1987 that the said application dated 111.1987 can be disposed of alongwith hearing of the appeal and accordingly the appeal was posted for hearing. 12. After passing through the journey of a series of adjournments for one reason or the other, this appeal ultimately came to be considered only on 01.09.2003. Noticing all the facts aforesaid, this Court found that now three issues required consideration, as to whether the need of the plaintiffs stands satisfied; whether still the plaintiffs would suffer greater hardship despite getting possession of three shops; and whether partial eviction from the shop in dispute could satisfy the need of the plaintiffs" This Court considered it appropriate to remit these issues to the trial Court and, therefore, passed the following order: “Date of Order : 01.09.2003 Honble Mr. Prakash Tatia, J. Mr. I.J. Lodha, for the Appellant. Mr. Arun Bhansali for Mr. L.R. Mehta, for the Respondents. The appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated 18th Nov., 1980 when this Court found that the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction for total four shops, which were in possession of four different tenants. This Court found that the petitioner got the possession of the two shops during the pendency of this appeal as the appeals filed by the other tenant with respect two other shops No. 198/80 Laxmandas vs. Sultanaram and No. 202/98 Nandlal vs. Sultanaram were only admitted and two appeals against the decree for eviction, Nos. 200/80 Gangarm vs. Sultanaram & 201/80 Ramsharan Das vs. Sultanaram were dismissed, therefore, this Court admitted the present appeal on the question:-As to whether the plaintiffs have still bona fide and reasonable requirement for remaining two shops, even if the suit in respect of other two shops have been decreed?. . . . . . . .The appellant submitted an application under Proviso-2 of the Section 14(20) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 and prayed that in view of the subsequent development even after passing of the decree by the first Appellate Court and in view of the question formulated by this Court while admitting the appeal, two questions of facts required investigation. One is whether the plaintiff s need stand satisfied after getting possession of the two shops, which were subject matter of the appeals No. 200/80 Gangaram vs. Sultanaram & Ors. & No. 201/80 Ramsharan Das vs. Sultanaram & Ors. and in view of the fact that after the order of this Court dated 18th Nov., 1980, the appeal No. 202/80 Nandlal vs. Sultanaram & Ors. has been withdrawn on 110.1987 and this third shop is also in possession of the plaintiff as submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant and the next question is whether in view of the subsequent development mentioned above, still the plaintiff will suffer greater hardship and no decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff . Therefore, the matter is remitted to the trial Court to take evidence on following issues:- .(i) Whether the need of the plaintiff stand satisfied after getting possession of three shops, which were subject matters in the second appeal No. 200/80 Gangaram vs. Sultana Ram & Ors. & No. 201/80 Ramsharan Das vs. Sultanaram & Ors. and No. 202/80 Nandlal vs. Sultanaram & Ors.? .(ii) Whether theplaintiff will suffer greater hardship, if the decree for eviction is not passed in favour of the plaintiff despite the fact that the plaintiff got the possession of three shops referred in issue No. 1? (iii) Whether the part of decree for eviction from the shops in dispute can satisfy the need of the plaintiff ? The trial Court shall conclude the trial within a period of two months and send the finding to this Court alongwith record. The trial Court shall proceed to take the evidence on issues expeditiously so as to complete the trial within the stipulated period. Both the parties are permitted to produce the relevant documents before the trial Court on or before the first date of hearing before the trial Court and the trial Court shall permit both the parties to lead their oral evidence also. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15th Sept., 2003. The trial be completed within a period of two months from 17th Sept., 2003. Office is directed to send the record to the trial Court forthwith. Put up this appeal in the Court on 17th Dec., 2003.” 13. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15th Sept., 2003. The trial be completed within a period of two months from 17th Sept., 2003. Office is directed to send the record to the trial Court forthwith. Put up this appeal in the Court on 17th Dec., 2003.” 13. In compliance of the directions aforesaid, the learned trial Court took up the matter for determination of the questions remitted to it. It appears from the record of the trial Court that the case was posted for filing of documents and evidence of the plaintiffs on 18.09.2003. However, the parties sought a days time for filing of the documents and the plaintiffs also moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC seeking amendment in the plaint with the submission that at the time of filing of the suit 30 years back, the sons of the plaintiffs were minors and now they have attained majority and the issues framed by the High Court were also required to be substantiated by documents and, therefore, amendment was required. The amendment was sought in the plaint to the effect that a family pedigree of the plaintiffs with the age of their sons and so also the age of the grand son of plaintiff No. 1 was sought to be stated; it was sought to be alleged that the shop in question was in a dilapidated condition and can fall down any time; that the defendant was spreading pollution and his furnaces/stoves were likely to endanger the locality; that the seven heirs of the plaintiffs are capable of working and were engaged in different businesses of seeds, grains, pesticides, etc. and were not having any other commercial place; and that the defendant was using the premises only for cooking purposes else he was carrying on well established business of sweets in his huge shop at Daga Katla; the defendant can establish his furnaces/stoves at any other place and would not suffer any hardship by eviction; and that the size of the premises was 9 x 7 which was indivisible and the need could not be satisfied by division. The application was opposed by the appellant defendant-tenant fundamentally on the premise that raising of new grounds for eviction was not permissible in view of the limited question sent by High Court for consideration and as the appeal was pending before the High Court, if at all any amendment was considered requisite, such prayer could be made in the pending appeal only. 14. The learned Additional Civil Judge was of opinion that it was a case of limited remand and not an open remand and, therefore, the trial Court could not take any proceeding beyond the order passed by the High Court. The application for amendment was accordingly rejected. 15. The plaintiffs produced affidavits of nine witnesses and filed 18 documents. An objection was raised by the defendant about some of the contents of the affidavits alleging them to be beyond the pleadings and sought deletion of the same from the affidavits. This prayer of the defendant was disallowed on the same considerations that it was a matter of limited remand and the Court was required to send its finding on the issues remitted by the High Court and the Court cannot go beyond the directions given by the High Court. The witnesses of the plaintiffs were thereafter cross-examined and then the defendant produced the affidavits of himself and two other witnesses Vijay Kumar and Daud. These two witnesses although appeared once before the Court but did not appear on the adjourned date and in view of the directions of this Court, the trial Court refused the prayer for adjournment and their affidavits were ordered to be removed out of consideration. 16. Thereafter, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) No. 1, Sri Ganganagar heard the parties and after analysing the evidence, concluded that the requirement of the plaintiffs was not fulfilled by obtaining possession of the three shops and the requirement was subsisting. The question of comparative hardship was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs and it was also found that looking to the size of the shop, partial eviction was not feasible. The findings were recorded on 111.2003 and were transmitted to this Court with record. 17. After receipt of the findings aforesaid, the appellant submitted his objections against the findings on 08.01.2004 and reply thereto was also submitted by the respondents on 13.01.2004. 18. The findings were recorded on 111.2003 and were transmitted to this Court with record. 17. After receipt of the findings aforesaid, the appellant submitted his objections against the findings on 08.01.2004 and reply thereto was also submitted by the respondents on 13.01.2004. 18. The summary of the proceedings hitherto as mentioned above makes it apparent that the requirement which was put forward by the plaintiffs in the suit filed in the year 1973 has been held proved by the first Appellate Court and the substratum of the requirement is not even a matter of question in this appeal. As noticed above, while considering the four appeals together, this Court was satisfied as held in Civil Second Appeal No. 200/80 and No. 201/80 that no substantial question of law was involved so far the findings on merits of the case by the first Appellate Court was concerned. 19. It was only the extent of the premises required to satisfy the requirement which was put in question by this Court in this appeal. As prime facie this Court was of opinion that the need as established definitely required two shops hence the two appeals of two tenants were straight away dismissed at the option of the plaintiffs. However, this Court felt it necessary to ponder over the question as to whether the need could still be said to be subsisting despite the plaintiffs getting two shops. Undoubtedly, the third shop of Nand Lal has also been received in possession by the plaintiffs during the pendency of this appeal. The question, then, is whether it could be said that for the established requirement, three shops are sufficient and, therefore, eviction should not be maintained for this fourth shop? The learned trial Court on this and cognate issues remitted to it has returned the findings in favour of the plaintiffs and the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant has submitted elaborate arguments assailing those findings. 20. For dealing with the objections of the appellant in respect of the findings dated 111.2003, the merits of the case pleaded by the plaintiffs and findings of learned Courts below deserve to be taken note of . 21. 20. For dealing with the objections of the appellant in respect of the findings dated 111.2003, the merits of the case pleaded by the plaintiffs and findings of learned Courts below deserve to be taken note of . 21. The plaintiffs pleaded the case of reasonable and bona fide necessity thus : Þ2- ;g fd eqnbZ;ku us nqdku ua- 1 esa QeZ rk:jke n;kjke ds uke ls dPph vk<r dk dkjksckj kq: fd;k FkkA bl dke ds fy, ckdh fgLlk nqdku ua- 1 /kkue.Mh dke esa vkrk gSA dPph vk<r ds dkjksckj esrjh gqbZ gS vkSa fiNys 3&4 lky esa dkQh c<ksj dPph vk<r esa -f"k mit fdlku eqnbZ;ku dh nqdku ij ykdj Qjks[r djrs gaSA -f"k mit e.Mh lfefr ykxw gksus ds ckn dikl] xgas w vkfn tks fdlku eqnbZ;ku dh nqdku ij cspus ds fy, ykrs gaS mldks fcdus esa djhc 10&15 fnu yx tkrs gSa vkSj -f"k mit ykus okys fdlku nqdku ij Bgjrs gSaA dPph vk<r ds dke esa c<ksrjh gksus ls vf/kd -"kd vkrs gaS ftuds cSBus] vkjke djus vkfn ds fy, nqdku esa LFkku dh deh eqnbZ;ku eglwl djrs gSaA 3-;g fd eqnbZ;ku us dkjksckj c<kus ds fy, iDdh vk<r dk dkjksckj kq: dj fn;k gS ftlds lEcU/k esa ckgj ds O;kikjh -f"k mit vkfn [kjhnus ds fy, eqnbZ;ku dh nqdku ij vkrs gSa vkSj bl O;kikj ds lEcU/k esa Hkh nqdku esa vf /kd LFkku dh vko;drk eqnbZ;ku eglwl djrs gaSA eqnbZ;ku us dbZ rjg dh [kkn&QjfVykbtj dh fMyjfli] ,tsUlh yh gS vkSj [kkn fjVsy esa cspus dk dkjksckj kq: fd;k gSA blds vykok xaxk [kkn ds xawxkuxj ftys esa lkSy fMLVhO;Vj cuus dh ckr phr pkyw gS ftlesa kks&:e vyx cukus dh krZ gSA [kkn dk kks :e Hkh cukuk vko;d gks x;k gSA 4- ;g fd [kkn dk kks&:e cukus ds fy, vkSj [kkn dh fcdzh ds fy, nqdku dks eqnk;yk ds ikl a ds ikl gSa lcls mi;Dr gS vkSfdjk;k ij gS o nhxj rhu nqdku tks nwljs yksxksqj eqnbZ;ku dks bu 4 nqdkukr dh ftuesa eqnk;yk dh nqdku lfEefyr gS usdfu;rh ls o ;FkkFkZ #i ls mijksDr dk;kaZs ds fy, futh vko;drk gS blfy, eqnbZ;ku mijksDr nqdku eqnk;yk ls [kkyh djus ds vf /kdkjh gSaAß 22. The necessity so pleaded by the plaintiffs was disputed by the defendant with the averments that after the enforcement of the rules relating to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, the brokerage business of the plaintiffs has come down and the plaintiffs and the other brokers were now not providing for lodging and boarding of the farmers who were bringing the agricultural produces. The farmers were not staying at the shop of the plaintiffs but were staying at Dharmshalas, Gurudwaras and Hotels and were taking their meals outside. The fact of the plaintiffs carrying on “Pucca Adhat” (brokerage) business in one part of this Dukan, dealing in manures and having obtained the dealership of fertilizers was admitted. It was stated that the defendant was having a shop measuring 10 x 7 and the plaintiffs were having other portion of Dukan No. 1 with varandah and shed in their possession in which they were carrying on the business and which was much more than as needed by the plaintiffs. In the remaining portion of 40 x 10 size of this Dukan No. 1 the plaintiffs have stocked fertilizers and manures and that was also more than as required for the business. There was nothing like show room for the manures and still if the plaintiffs so desire, they can provide for a show room at the back side of the Dukan No. 1 which was also opening towards market. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs had taken three more shops No. 204, 205 and 206 on rent from the Municipal Council, Ganganagar; shop No. 206 was let out to one Rameshwar Nai but shops No. 204 and 205 were in possession of the plaintiffs and were lying vacant. The plaintiffs could have provided for a show room for their business in these shops but have let out one and were intending to let out the other shops also. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs were mighty landlords having about 20 murabbas of land and were earning rent from the five shops, carved out from this Dukan No. 1 and have further placed five almirahs in the remaining wall after enclosing Municipal Council land and they were also let out. The plaintiffs were quite greedy persons and were only intending to harass the tenants for recovering higher rent. 23. The plaintiffs were quite greedy persons and were only intending to harass the tenants for recovering higher rent. 23. According to the defendant, in the months of September and October, 1972 the plaintiffs asked for enhancement of rent from Rs. 65/-per month to Rs. 125/-per month and threatened to forcibly eject the tenants. The defendant has also submitted that when he wanted to repair his premises, the plaintiffs entered into altercation and threatened him to vacate the premises. Thereupon, the defendant submitted a complaint to the Tenants Association and the Association met the Superintendent of Police requesting investigation. The present suit has been filed against the defendant and other three tenants by putting forward false ground of necessity. There was no necessity with the plaintiffs and they only wanted enhancement of rent. 24. On the pleadings of the parties only one contentious issue was framed in this case as to whether the plaintiffs were having a reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit shop? In evidence, the plaintiffs examined Ad Ram PW. 1, Sultana Ram PW. 2, Badri Prasad PW. 3, Devi Lal PW. 4, Gheru Das PW. 5, Kishan Lal PW. 6 and Chatar Nath PW. 7; whereas the defendant Laxman Das examined himself as DW. 1, Mukund Singh DW. 2, Nand Lal DW. 3, Thakur Singh DW. 4 and Ganga Ram DW. 5. 25. The learned Additional Munsif , Sri Ganganagar proceeded to decide the issue involved by the Judgment dated 210.1975. After referring to pleadings of the parties the learned Munsif took up issue No. 1, recited summary of the statements of the witnesses, then noticed the contentions of the respective parties and referred to the citations relied upon by the respective parties. After this much, without any discussion for accepting or rejecting any particular evidence or any particular contention, the learned Munsif abruptly concluded that from the evidence and rival contentions it was proved that the requirement of the plaintiffs was neither bona fide nor reasonable. There ought not to be any ulterior motive for bona fide necessity but in this case the ulterior motive of enhancement of rent has come (to the fore) and according to the learned Munsif it was a duty of the Court that the hardship be kept in view. There ought not to be any ulterior motive for bona fide necessity but in this case the ulterior motive of enhancement of rent has come (to the fore) and according to the learned Munsif it was a duty of the Court that the hardship be kept in view. The plaintiffs were having shops from the Municipal Council which can be used, but (these) shops were the only source of livelihood which would cause hardship (to the tenants). According to the learned Munsif keeping all the circumstances in view, the requirement of the plaintiffs could not be treated to be reasonable and hence issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiffs and accordingly the suit was ordered to be dismissed. 26. A perusal of the aforesaid Judgment dated 210.1975 at pages A48/1 to A48/9 of the record of civil suit leaves much to be desired, to say the least. Incomplete conclusions have been mentioned, that too in a wholly cursory manner. Be that as it may, leaving the matter at that only, the further course taken by this litigation may be noticed. 27. It appears that all the four suits aforesaid were dismissed by the learned Munsif by the Judgment and decree of the even date and four appeals were taken up for consideration on 25.05.1978 and by that time, amendment to Section 14 of the Act has come into force requiring the Court to consider the question of comparative hardship also before granting a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Judge noted in the order dated 25.05.1978 the effect of the said amendment in the Act requiring consideration of the question of comparative hardship. It was suggested on behalf of the tenants that sufficient material was available on record for the Appellate Court to form opinion regarding comparative hardship but in the absence of any issue regarding comparative hardship the learned Appellate Judge did not accede to this request and instead, reserving the opinion on the merits of the appeals, referred the cases to the trial Court with the issue of comparative hardship and directed the lower Court to decide the issue after allowing opportunity of evidence to both the parties. 28. 28. The issue of comparative hardship so remitted was decided by the Additional Munsif , Sri Gaganagar by the order dated 011.1979 against the plaintiffs particularly in view of the fact that the two shops No. 204 and 205 were lying vacant with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs witnesses stated that those shops were being used for storing weights, measures, tents, etc. but this use was taken to be unjustified, whereas the defendant Laxman Das was having no other place in Sri Ganganagar for preparing sweets. 29. After receipt of the findings aforesaid, the appeal was taken up for consideration by the learned Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar who has decided the same by the impugned Judgment and decree dated 28.07.1980. The learned Judge noticed the cryptic and cursory decision of the learned trial Court, as noticed above, and found that there was no analysis or evaluation of the evidence nor of any of the contentions and, therefore, it was necessary to examine the entire evidence for proper disposal of the appeal. The learned appellate Judge referred to the statements of the plaintiffs