MODI, J.—This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by Kanhaiyalal (since deceased) and his brother Vasudeo to eject the tenant defendant, who is appellant in this appeal.

2. The suit was filed on 11-10-71 when the provisions of the Rajasthan Pre-mises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, were in force. Both the lower courts took the view that the land-lords required the demised premises bona fide and reasonably for their own occupation and for the occupation of their family members. The courts below therefore decreed the suit for ejectment in favour of Vasudeo and the legal representatives of Kanhaiyalal who died during the pendency of the suit in trial court. The tenant has preferred this second appeal. During the pendency of the second appeal in the Court, the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was amended by the Rajasthan Premises(Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (Ordinance No.26 of 1975), hereinafter called as the Amendment Ordinance of 1975, on 29-9-75.

3. It is contended on behalf of the tenant-appellant that in view of sec. 14(2) of the Act as amended by the Amendment Ordinance of 1975, the decree passed by the two lower courts was not proper and the same may be set aside.

4. Sec. 13(1)(h) of the Act which has not been amended by the Amendment Ordinance of 1975 runs as under—

"Sec. 13—Eviction of tenant.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefor to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied—

(a) to (g) xx xx xx

(h) that the premises are required reasonbly and bonifies by the landlord—

(i) for the use or occupation of himself or his family, or

(ii) for the use or occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held,

(iii) for a public purpose, or

(iv) for a philanthropic use:"

Sec. 14 of the Act as it stood before the Amendment Ordinance of 1975 ran as under:-

"Sec. 14—Restriction on eviction—

(1) xx xx

(2) No decree for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (h) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 13 shall be passed unless the Court is satisfied, after taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, that it is reasonable to allow such eviction."

Sec. 10 of the Amendment Ordinance of 1975 has amended sec. 14 of the Act It provides that the existing sub-section (2) shall be renumbered as sub-sec. (1) thereof and after sub-sec. (1) as so re-numbered, the following sub-sections shall be added, namely:-

"(2) No decree for eviction on the ground set-forth in clause (h) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 13 shall be passed if the court is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including (he question whether other reasonable accommodation is available to the landlord or the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. Where the court is satisfied that no hardship would be caused either to the tenant or to the landlord by passing the decree in respect of a part of the premises, the court shell pass the decree in respect of such part only.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no suit for eviction from the premises let out for commercial or business purposes shall lie against a tenant on the ground set-forth in clause (h) of sub-section (1) of sec. 13 before the expiry of five years from the date the premises were let out to the tenant."

A perusal of the above section would reveal that the effect of the amendment is that while previously if a landlord required the demised premises reasonably and bonafide for the use and occupation of himself or his family, he could obtain a decree for eviction of a tenant but after the amendment the court will have to further examine the question of comparative hardship of the landlo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document