The main legal point established in this judgment is that the court must consider the bonafide and reasonable necessity of the landlord for eviction, the comparative hardship between the parties, and the feasibility of partial eviction in determining a suit for eviction under the Rent Control legislation.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellant-defendants-tenant (hereinafter referred as "tenant") have preferred this first appeal under Section 96 CPC, assailing judgment and decree dated 17-8-2004 in Civil Suit No.2/2003 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track), No.2, Alwar whereby and whereunder suit for eviction and recovery of rent has been decreed.

2. The facts of the case are that rented premises a house No.308, Arya Nagar measuring 761 Sq. Yards comprising of four rooms, kitchen, toilet, 2 warrandah, gallary etc., was let out by original plaintiff Krishan Sharan Sharma to original tenant Ghasi Ram Yadav way back in July, 1967 at the rate of Rs.140/- per month for the purpose of residence. Since the original tenant committed default in payment of rent and the original plaintiff landlord required the house for his own family hence a civil suit for eviction invoking the provisions of Section 13(1)(a) and (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereafter `the Rent Act') was filed on 25-11-2000. At the time of institution of suit for eviction the original tenant Ghasi Ram Yadav had passed away hence the suit was filed against (i) Mahendra Yadav (younger son) and (ii) Uma Yadav (widow of elder son Ram Singh Yadav), impleading them as defendants No.1 and 2, who were stated to be in possession of the rented house. During pendency of suit, the original plaintiff Krishan Sharan Sharma also passed away, hence his wife and son were allowed to continue proceedings of the suit for eviction. The trial court after recording evidence of both parties and holding a full fledged trial recorded findings of fact that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent for more than six months, however, the benefit of first default was extended. The trial court found that the rented house is required to plaintiff landlord for residence of his own family and the need of plaintiff is bonafide and reasonable, hence, the suit for eviction was decreed on ground of personal and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff landlord vide judgment dated 17-8-2004.

3. Before entering into merits of the judgment of trial court on grounds challenged by appellants, since some subsequent developments have occurred during pendency of first appeal, which are undisputed and in the opinion of this court have material bearing on merits of appeal hence it is necessary to consider the effect of these undisputed subsequent facts first.

Since appellant No.1 Mahendra Yadav passed away on 29- 10-2019, thereafter, the appellant No.2 Uma Yadav is pursuing the first appeal. After going through the entire pleadings, facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the arguments of counsel for both parties, this court is prima facie of the opinion that the pursuation of first appeal by appellant No.2 is unwarranted, rather it can be assumed that it is just to gain ulterior motive and is malafide. There is no hesitation to observe that the pursuation of the first appeal by appellant No.2 is superfluous and can be termed as unscrupulous litigation. There seems no bonafide on the part of appellant No.2, what to say for protection of her right as tenant under the provisions of the Rent Act. The aim an object of the rent control legislation is intended to save harassment of tenant, but it does not deprive the landlord of their properties for good. For such reasons, this court is first dealing with subsequent events coupled with basic pleadings of parties, which are undisputed, to show that appellant No.2 seems to be desperate not to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of rented house to respondent voluntarily and adament to pursue the first appeal stacking the high court to pass judgment on merits:-

(i) It is an admitted fact that the rented house was let out to original tenant Gahsi Ram Yadav in July,1967, and after his death the eviction suit was filed on 25-11-2000 against appellants No.1&2 impleading them as defendants No.1&2 in suit stating that both defendan