The court emphasized the importance of establishing reasonable and bona fide need for eviction and considered the comparative hardship of the parties involved.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment of the courts below.

2. Both the courts below have found issues Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in favour of the plaintiff. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 related to reasonable and bona fide need and comparative hardship. After appreciation of the evidence on record both the courts have found the plaintiffs need for premises in question is reasonable and bona fide and in case decree is not passed in favour of the plaintiff, he would suffer greater hardship as compared to the hardship of the defendant.

3. As regards the question of default it was urged that the defendant continued to remit rent by money orders and was not a defaulter, so non- compliance of the provisions of Section 13.4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, would have no effect. In this connection, it may be pointed out that the defendant's defence was struck out on 3-3-1978 and an appeal was taken against that order, but the order of the trial court was maintained in appeal. There does not appear any such argument was raised before the courts below in this regard. Apart from that when issues Nos. 1 and 2 have been found in favour of the plaintiff, that is sufficient for passing the decree for eviction.

4. The main emphasis of the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that the suit itself was not maintainable in view of the fact that the transferor had no right to sell the property in question to the plaintiff. In this regard the necessary pleas taken by the defendant appellant were the subject matter of issues Nos. 5 and 6. These two issues have also been found against the defendant by both the courts and both the courts have taken into consideration the defendant's own admission. She has admitted the plaintiff to be the landlord to the property in question. In my opinion, the defendant's admission has rightly pressed into service on this point. Thus as considered, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, so this appeal is dismissed summarily.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant prays that the defendant may be allowed six months time to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises. In my opinion time up to 30th June, 1980, would meet the ends of justice. On or before 30th June, 1980, the defendant shall deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff, for which the learned counsel undertakes that the direction of the court will be complied with.Appeal dismissed.

*******