ORDER :

Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This civil second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge no.4, Kota in Civil Regular Appeal No.6/2013 (for brevity "the learned appellate Court") whereby, while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff"), the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, (North) Kota (for short "the learned trial Court) in Civil Case No.78/2001 dismissing the suit for eviction, has been reversed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the appellant/defendant (for brevity "the defendant") from the suit premises comprising of three rooms on the ground floor and eight rooms and two halls on the first floor on the grounds of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide necessity, nuisance and substantial damage to the premises by the defendant diminishing its value. It was averred in the plaint that the subject premises were required for hostel for the students of Shri Maharshi Gautam Samaj.

3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, seven issues were framed. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 27.02.2013 decided the issues of default in payment of rent, substantial damage to the premises by the defendant and nuisance against the plaintiff; but, while deciding the issue of reasonable and bonafide necessity in favour of the plaintiff, dismissed the suit deciding the issues No.3 and 4 in favour of the defendant pertaining to comparative hardship and partial eviction. The civil first appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed by the learned appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 22.05.2019.

4. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, learned counsel for the defendant contends that the learned appellate Court erred in reversing the findings recorded by the learned trial Court based on appreciation of evidence on record. He submitted that while allowing the appeal, the learned appellate Court did not appreciate that the school was also being run for the benefit of students of the Samaj. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2019 be quashed and set aside and the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2013 passed by the learned trial Court be restored.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. While deciding the Issues No.2 and 2A pertaining to reasonable and bona fide necessity of the subject premises by the plaintiff and it is not coming to an end on account of acquisition of an alternative accommodation by it, in favour of the plaintiff, the learned trial Court has refused to grant the decree of eviction deciding the Issues No.3 and 4 in favour of the defendant which pertained to comparative hardship and partial eviction. The issue No.3 was decided against the plaintiff on the premise that since the defendant was running a school in the subject premises for last about 10 years, not only future of the students would be jeopardized; but, about 8-10 Teachers and Class-IV employees will also face financial hardship as they would be rendered unemployed. It has also been held that from the rental income from the shops situated in the premises and with 4-5 lac capital investment, requisite accommodation for hostel of the students could be increased. This finding of the learned trial Court is in contradiction with the findings recorded vide issues No.2 and 2A wherein, it was