IMPORTANT POINT
Bonafide necessity, comparative hardship, partial ejectment and default are pure questions of fact and do not raise any substantial question of law.

S.S. Kothari, J.—This appeal, in which judgment and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court dated 31.7.2000 and 21.7.2009 are under challenge, is a grim reminder of delays in our justice delivery system which has led people to believe that result of a litigation is reaped by the 2nd/3rd generation of the person who initiated the lis. Bereft of details, the relevant facts are that Sh Jatan Mal Lodha, the predecessor of the respondents, filed suit on 20.9.1988 on the averments that Bhanwar Lal Sharma, predecessor of the appellants, was a tenant in the Shop No.13/269, Naya Bazar, Ajmer. The tenancy was oral and the month used to commence on 1 Sudi of every Hindi Vikram Calendar. Bharwar Lal Sharma expired on 1.12.1987 and the defendants became his tenants. The plaintiff was Manager and Karta of Joint Hindu Family which included his two sons. The plaintiff claimed ejectment of the defendants from the said shop on the ground that they have committed default by not paying rent from Kartik Sudi I Samwat 2044 to Sawanvadi 15 (Amawas) Samwat 2045. The defendants have also sublet part of the said shop to M/s. R.B. Saraf without permission of the plaintiff. It was further alleged that the defendants have made material alteration in the said shop by joining it with the adjacent shop, purchased by them, by removing the gate of the shop and fixing glass show case. It was also alleged that the said shop is required for personal, reasonable and bonafide use of the younger son of the plaintiff, namely, Rajendra Kumar Lodha, who has graduated in commerce and wants to start cloth business in it for his livelihood. The plaintiff and his son have no accommodation for running the said business. The plaintiff and his son will suffer hardship and inconvenience if the shop is not vacated as he will not be able to start their business, while the defendants will not face any difficulty in case decree of ejectment is passed against them as they have three other shops in which they are already running their business. The disputed shop is being used only for keeping a show case. The plaintiff prayed for a decree of ejectment, arrears of rent of Rs.1,750, future mesne profits and costs of the suit. The plaint was amended to incorporate the details of the material alterations made by the defendants in the shop which included removal of pillar between the two shops and fixing of girder in its place which has resulted in weakening the base of the first floor. It was further alleged that the level of the shop which was 3 ft. high from the road has been lowered and now it is only 2 ft. high from the road resulting in weakness in the walls of the shop. It was also submitted that the defendants have removed tin shade in front of the shop and constructed one cement balcony in its place. All the aforesaid material alterations were made without obtaining permission from the plaintiff.

2. The defendants denied plaint allegations except tenancy in their written statement. It was submitted that rent from Kartik Sudi 1 Samwat 2044, to Shravanvadi Samwat 2045 @ Rs.175 was paid to the plaintiff on 22.1.1989 and subsequent rent has been deposited in Account No.7525 in the Bank of Baroda. No portion of the shop has been sublet to M/s. B.R Saraf Actually ) M/s. B.R. Saraf means Bhanwar Lal. Ramswaroop Saraf which is the business name of the defendants. Both the shops were in the present shape right from the beginning as they were owned only by one person. They are in the same shape even today. No glass show case has been fixed. Moreover, fixing of glass show-case does not amount to material alteration. The plaintiff wants to get the shop vacated and give it on enhanced rent if the shop is vacated, greater inconvenience will be caused to the defendants and their business of 40 years will be ruined. The standard rent of the shop cannot be more than Rs.56.25 paisa and the same may be determined by the Court in reply to the amended plaint it was submitted that