The judgment emphasizes the genuine and bona fide nature of the landlord's need, the landlord's right to maintain living standards, and the landlord's freedom to choose suitable accommodation.

1. - The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.9.2001 passed by the first appellate court, by which it affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 16.1.1999, by which the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for ejectment of the appellant-defendant from the tenanted premises had been decreed.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent-plaintiff purchased the tenanted premises in 1978 and at that time, the appellant-defendant was a tenant in the suit premises. The respondent- plaintiff had purchased two shops adjacent to each other and subsequently filed suits for eviction against both the tenants on the ground of bona fide need alongwith other issues. However, so far as the present appeal is concerned, the grounds of bona fide need, non-payment of rent, making material alteration in the suit premises were taken. So far as the suit in respect of other adjacent shop was concerned, it had been decreed and the said tenant vacated the shop. In the present case, admittedly the defendant contested the suit and in view of the pleadings, large number of issues were framed, including bona fide need, comparative hardship, partial eviction and as to whether the need of the landlord got satisfied by eviction of the other tenant in the adjacent shop, non-payment of rent, i.e. default. The trial Court considered the issue of bona fide need, alongwith evaporation of the need by ejectment of other shop and decided in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The issue of comparative hardship was also decided in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. On the issue of partial eviction, the Court held that partial eviction would not serve the purpose for the reason that the landlord needed one shop for preparation of food-stuff and another shop for serving the same. On the issue of material alteration, the Court held that no material alteration had been made by the appellant-defendant. For a particular period, the appellant was found to be defaulter in payment of rent but being the first default, he was held entitled for the benefit of the statutory provisions. In view of the above, the suit was decreed by the trial Court.

3. The first appellate Court affirmed the findings on all the issues and also took into consideration the application filed by the appellant-defendant under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code"), wherein the judgment and decree in respect of eviction of the other shop was taken on record to determine as to whether the eviction of the other tenant in the adjacent shop would serve the need of the landlord. Hence this second appeal.

4. Mr. R.R. Nagori, learned counsel for the appellant has raised all the issues which had been raised by the appellant-defendant in the Courts below and submitted that large number of questions of law are involved; the Courts below did not consider the material evidence on record; the issue of bona fide need was not considered objectively; the first appellate Court did not consider the application of the appellant under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code objectively and mis-interpreted the provisions of the statute. In support of his submissions regarding bona fide need and comparative hardship, he has placed reliance upon certain judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, e.g. In M/s. Central Tobacco Co. Ltd., Bangalore v. Chandra Prakash, 1969 AIR CJ 702 ; the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court has to consider the totality of the circumstances including whether other reasonable accommodation was available for the landlord, as well as for the tenant.

5. In Bhaichand Ratanshi v. Laxmishanker Tribhoyan, AIR 1981 SC 1690 , the issue of comparative hardship was considered and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is one of the important factor in considering the question of greater hardship as to whether reasonable accommodation is available to the landlord or the tenant.

6. In Jivram Ranchh