The personal bonafide necessity of the landlord and the comparative hardship to the parties are relevant factors to be considered in a suit for eviction under Section 13(1)(g) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.

1. - Baboo Lal, husband of the appellant and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 10 had filed a suit in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Bharatpur for ejectment of the stair case on rent with respondent No. 1 Mangtoo Ram and recovery of arrears of rent. The learned Additional Civil Judge, Bharatpur by the judgment dated November 4, 1980 decreed the suit of the plaintiff Baboo Lal for ejectment of the suit premises and arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 1140/- and mesne profit @ Rs. 60/- P.M. from June 1, 1975 till the date of possession of the premises. Mangtoo Ram defendant-respondent preferred appeal against the aforesaid decree and challenged the findings of the trial Court on Issues No. 1, 2 and 3 relating to the rate of rent, personal reasonable bonafide necessity of the plaintiff of the suit premises and the comparative hardship of the parties. The learned Additional District Judge No. 1. Bharatpur reversed the findings of the trial Court on all the three Issues and accepted the appeal of the defendant-respondent by the judgment dated March 27, 1984. Feeling dissatisfied by the judgment of the first appellate Court, Smt. Kiran Devi wife of Baboo Lal plaintiff has filed second appeal in this Court against Mangtoo Ram defendant-respondent and proforma respondent Nos. 2 to 10.

2. The case of the plaintiff was that adjacent to his shop situated at Kumhergate, Bharatpur, there is a stair case for going to the roof of the shop. That, the said stair case was rented to Mangtoo Ram in the year 1972 at the monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. That, the defendant had installed a wooden cabin on the first step of the stair case measuring 3' x 4' and was carrying on business of betel in that cabin. The plaintiff had sought vacation of the rented premises on the ground that the defendant had committed default in payment of rent and also on the ground that the plaintiff wanted to raise construction on the roof of the shop and for that purpose of stair case was required. The case of the plaintiff was that accommodation in the house with him was not sufficient for his big family. The defendant contested the suit on both the grounds and alleged that the suit premises was let out at the monthly rent of Rs. 15/- P.M. only. Regarding the requirement of the suit premises to the plaintiff, the plea taken by the defendant was that the plaintiff was having one house at Kumhergate and another at Goodri Mohalla and there is no necessity for him to raise any construction over the shop of the roof on which the stair case in question was leading.

3. The learned Additional Civil Judge decided the first there Issues in favour of the plaintiff and passed the decree. The findings of all the three Issues were challenged in appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, No. 1, Bharatpur did not approve the finding of the trial Court and held that the suit premises must have been rented out at the monthly rent of Rs. 15/- p.m. only and the plaintiff cannot be said to be in bonafide requirement of the suit premises. It was also held that there would be more hardship to the defendant than the plaintiff in case the decree for eviction is passed. The findings of the first appellate Court on these Issues have been challenged here on the ground that they are based on surmises and conjectures only and not the evidence on record.

4. During the course if arguments the learned counsel for the appellant addressed the Court only on the point of personal bonafide necessity of the suit premises to the appellant and there being more hardship to her in comparison to the defendant in case the first appellate Court's judgment is not reversed. The learned counsel for the appellant did not advance any argument regarding the finding on issue No. 1 and upon perusal of the judgment of the two Courts below, I find that the reasons given by the first appellate Court regarding Issue No. 1 are based on proper appreciation of evidence and that Court has rightly discussed that the burden of