Full Judgment
Vineet Kothari, J.
1. Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellant-tenant (defendant in suit for eviction) in his usual style of flair with some stubbornness submits that the case is only listed on application for preponing the date to which he does not object and when the matter was preponeded for today itself, he was asked to address the Court for admission / hearing of the case, he refused to do so and informed the Court that the appeal has already been admitted on 24.8.2009. Therefore, without assistance from the learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel for the respondent was asked to go through the impugned judgments.
2. Both the learned courts below have concurrently given the findings of fact as to bonafide necessity of the respondent- plaintiff about the suit premises in an eviction suit filed by him in Rent Control law.
3. Both the Courts below have held on the basis of evidence that the suit premises, a residential house situated at Sadul Colony, Bikaner of two rooms were given on rent to the appellant-defendant in which he started a shop of selling milk. Since the plaintiff- respondent was in Government service, after his retirement, he needed these premises for the bonafide need of his wife, who wanted to start a small school for small children in the said suit premises.
4. Both the courts below have held that there was a bonafide need of the suit premises to the plaintiff-respondent and, therefore, have decreed the suit directing the appellant to handover the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff-respondent.
5. The tenancy in question commenced from the year 1982 on the monthly rent of Rs. 325/- per month.
6. Learned trial court in its judgment dated 21.5.2007 has decided the issue No. 2 about comparative hardship also in favour of the plaintiff that the suit premises namely shop in question admeasures only 9'x9' and, therefore, it is not possible to direct partial eviction and comparative hardship issue was also decided in favour of plaintiff. The said findings have been affirmed by the learned appellate court also.
7. The question framed at the time of admission of this appeal on 24.8.2009 by coordinate Bench of this Court is as follows:
Whether the learned trial court as well as the appellate court have rightly arrived at with the finding of comparative hardship and have passed the decree for eviction without considering the material evidence on record.
8. Having heard learned Counsel for the respondent and having gone through the impugned orders, this Court is of the considered opinion that as a matter of fact the finding of comparative hardship returned by the learned courts below on the basis of evidence are findings of fact and the same cannot be said to be perverse. Since the question was framed at the time of admission, for the reasons given in the impugned orders, this Court answers the said question in affirmative and holds that both the courts below have rightly arrived at the finding in favour of the plaintiff-respondent about bonafide personal need of landlord and comparative hardship also in his favour and were justified in passing the decree of eviction in question.
9. The appeal is found to be devoid of merit. The same is, therefore, dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant shall handover peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises in question to the plaintiff-respondent within a period of two months from today and shall also pay mense profit at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month for these two months. If the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises in question is not handed over to the respondent-plaintiff within the said period of two months from today, the plaintiff-respondent shall not only be entitled to execute the decree in normal course but shall be also entitled to invoke contempt jurisdiction of this Court.