G.M. LODHA, J.—this is a civil second appeal of a tenant-defendant against whom the suit for eviction has been decreed by the appellate court. The decree has been passed on the basis of the finding in favour of the paintiffs-landlord that the necessity of suit premises of the plaintiffs is both reasonable and bonafide.

2. After the amendment introduced in S. 13, of the Rajasthan Premises (Control Of Rent & Eviction) Act, (for brevity, the Act), the requirement of comparative hardship of the plaintiff and the defendant needs examination. An issue was, therefore, framed and it was remitted to the lower court for recording of the evidence and giving a finding.

3. The lower court, after recording of the evidence, has given the finding that the comparative hardship would be to the tenant-appellant if the premises are got vacated from him because, he would not got alternative premises. The finding is that the plaintiff has got residential premises in which their machines for manufacturing the tinklers (Ghungharu) are lying.

4. The learned counsel for the tenant-appellant has submitted that the finding regarding comparative hardship is a rinding of fact and cannot be challenged in second ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document