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