The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which requires the Court to consider the landlord's reasonable and bona fide requirement for eviction, as well as the issue of comparative hardship.

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. 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 afte