1. - This second appeal has been filed by the defendant appellant tenant, against the decree of eviction passed by the learned lower Appellate Court, on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff,-and also by deciding the question of partial eviction, and comparative hardship in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court.

2. The facts of the-case are, that the plaintiff filed the present suit for eviction on 27.10.1995. The allegations are, that the House No. 6, B-Block, 193 Sriganganagar adjacent to corner shop type Chhaper, which was let out by Chunnilal husband of Saroj Kumari to the defendant in the year 1990 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-, which rent was subsequently increased to Rs. 1100/-. the defendant paid rent to Chunnilal upto 31.3.1993. It is alleged that the said Chhaper exists on municipal land, which was taken on rent by Saroj Kumari, and Saroj Kumari sold the Malba of Chhaper to the plaintiff in the year 1993, and now it is recorded in the name of plaintiff, consequently Saroj is retaining no concern with this. Thus, there is relationship of landlord and the tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. Then, it is alleged that Chhaper was taken on rent by the defendant from husband of Saroj, and in that regard the husband Chunnilal gave a registered notice dated 30.7.1993 to the defendant, directing him to pay rent since 14 j993 onwards to the plaintiff. Likewise identical notice was given by the plaintiff to the defendant, both of which notices were received. "Thus, also relationship of landlord and tenant is established. With this it is alleged, that the defendant has not paid the rent for 30 months, and has claimed eviction on the grounds mentioned in para-5 being default in payment of rent, and reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff's daughter-in-law Smt. Vinod Bakslni, who is M.A., M.Ed. qualified, and was working as teacher in Vivek Memorial Public School till 30.11.1994, requires the premises for establishing a computer coaching centre. This Vinod Bakshi is claimed to be living in the House No. 89, in the B-Block. Size of the premises was pleaded to be 12 x 20 ft. Then, the pleadings about the impartibility, and comparative hardship have been taken.

3. A written statement has been filed by the defendant on 22.5.1996, contesting the suit. Para-1 of the plaint was denied, and it was pleaded that the suit shop was taken on rent from Chunnilal at a rent of Rs. 1000/-, and he is continuing in tenancy. It was admitted that the shop existed on the land of Municipality. However, the fact of its purchase by the plaintiff in April, 1993 was denied, and it was pleaded that the shop was taken on rent from Chunnilal, and rent was being received by him only. It was also pleaded that the factum of purchase of shop by plaintiff is denied, and that plaintiff never made any demand of rent from the defendant. Then, replying para-3 it was pleaded that Chunnilal never gave any notice to the defendant about having sold the `shop, nor any such notice was sent by the plaintiff. It was denied that the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit. Then, replying para-4 the plea of the rent @ Rs. 1100/- per month being in arrears from 1.4.1993 to 30.9.1995 was denied. It was pleaded that the plaintiff never made demand of rent, nor gave any notice, and the plaintiff is not entitled to receive any rent from the defendant. Then, replying the grounds pleaded in para-5, the allegation of default was denied, pleading that the defendant has not committed any default. Denying the plea of bonafide necessity, the academic qualification of the plaintiff's daughter-in-law was denied, and alternatively it was pleaded, that the qualification cannot be said to be appropriate for computer coaching. It was pleaded that the alleged requirement is only an excuse. The daughter in law has no experience of computer coaching. Then, in further alternative it w