1. - By this second appeal the appellants who are the legal representatives of the original defendant tenant Pukhraj seek to assail the decree for eviction from the suit shop passed by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the learned lower Appellate Court. The original defendant had died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were duly substituted on record.

2. Plaintiff respondent filed the present suit for eviction and arrears of rent on 4-4-86 against the defendant seeking to evict him from the shop situated at old Bus Stand in the town of Bali which is in the tenancy at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month, alleging interalia the defendant to have committed default in payment of monthly rent and also alleged the suit shop to be personally required by him for his two sons Jaffar Hussain and Mohd. Majid for their starting 'Kirana' business.

3. The defendant contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the shop was initially taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month which was subsequently increased to Rs. 50/-, the plaintiff did not receive the rent despite being tendered on the pretext that he wanted to increase the rent to Rs. 100/- per month. Arrears of rent was not disputed. However, it was contended that since the Bus Stand had been shifted, it had adversely affected his business. Under force of these circumstances he could not deposit the monthly rent. Regarding requirement the defendant contested that both the sons are minor and are taking education. It was also contended that the plaintiff has a business of operating taxi and has agricultural land also. Therefore, the plaintiff does not require the suit shop for the alleged 'Kirana' business. It was also contended that the plaintiff had other shop let out to one Ushman Bhai from whom he has got it evicted which is lying vacant. The defendant also contended, obviously for the purpose of highlighting comparative hardship that the defendant has no other shop for continuing his business in the township of Bali and it is also not possible for him to get alternative accommodation at bus stand.

4. During trial the evidence led by the parties consisted of the plaintiff Fateh Mohd and that of the present appellant No. 1 Punam Singh only. Thus no other evidence was led.

5. As stated above the learned trial Court while deciding all the issues against the defendant including the issue of comparative hardship and partial eviction decreed the suit which decree has been affirmed by the learned lower Appellate Court.

6. Before me it was firstly contended that since the defendant has complied with the provisions of S. 13(3) and (4) Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 in view of the provisions of S. 13(6) no decree for eviction could be passed on the ground of default.

7. Suffice it to say that both the learned Courts below have simply affirmed the defendant to be defaulter and while decreeing the suit the learned trial Court has simply observed that the suit is liable to be decreed on the ground of evidence adduced by the defendant; true it is that in view of the provisions of S. 13(6) the decree for eviction could not be passed on the ground of default.

8. The question that still survives is that once the decree has been passed on another ground of alleged reasonable and bona fide personal necessity of the plaintiff also and by deciding the questions of comparative hardship and partial eviction against the defendant, until and unless findings on these issues are successfully assailed within the four corners of S. 100, CPC the mere fact that decree proceeds on an additional ground of default is of no material consequence. In this view of the matter the learned counsel then assailed the findings of the learned Courts below on the question of reasonable and bona fide necessity.

9. I may mention here that defendant D.W. 4 in his statement had clearly admitted that partial eviction of the suit premises looking to its size and nature of