Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. When this matter came up for hearing before this Court earlier, it was noticed that while the Trial Court had considered the feasibility of partial eviction of the tenant from the premises without recording any finding as required under sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, the District Judge had altogether failed to record any finding in that behalf. Hence, the matter was remitted to the District Judge, Belgaum, with a direction to call for a finding from the trial Court and forward the same along with his own finding thereon. The District Judge accordingly called for a finding from the Principal Munsiff at Belgaum. The Trial Court after recording additional evidence as adduced by both the parties, gave a finding that the premises is capable of partition and that no hardship would be caused either to the landlord or to the tenant by passing a decree for eviction in respect of a part of the premises. However, on a re-appreciation of the evidence, including the additional evidence, the District Judge by his order dated 10th January 1984 held that the petition premises is structurally incapable of division into two suitable portions and that the parties cannot carry on their respective business without hardship to each other, and hence, this is not a case wherein a decree for partial eviction could be passed. Accordingly the District Judge recorded his negative finding on this point and submitted the same to this Court.

14. This takes me to the question of comparative hardship that may be caused to either of the parties by allowing or refusing the eviction order as the case may be ; and the feasibility of ordering a partial eviction of the tenant. The Learned District Judge has considered this matter at great length and found that greater hardship would be caused to the landlord in the event of refusing to pass an order of eviction. It is found that the tenant has a flourishing hotel business opposite to the premises in question of which he is the owner. There is also no doubt that the tenant has the necessary resources and capacity to find further accommodation for his business if needed. On the question of feasibility of partial eviction he found that it is not only impracticable but the same is impossible without causing undue hardship and inconvenience to both the parties. The Learned District Judge has considered in the first instance whether the premises is structurally capable of partition. He has found that the shape of the building does not permit of a convenient division and it is not possible as suggested by the Trial Court to divide the premises into two portions.

21. In my opinion the Learned District Judge was also right in holding that simply because the petitioner and his sons are beginners in the proposed business, it cannot be held that a portion of the premises could meet their require-ment, unmindful of the practical difficulties, inconveniences and hardship which will be caused to both the parties. The admitted and established facts in the case lead to the irresistible conclusion that the premises is incapable of division into two portions and that the parties cannot carry on their respective businesses without hardship to each other and hence, this is not a case wherein partial eviction could be ordered. The very idea of two different proprietors running their separate lodging business in the same building sharing certain essential amenities in common is also repugnant to the smooth running of the business of either party. The partial eviction as suggested besides being impracticable would cause more hardship to the landlord and hence this would not be a just solution which would strike an even balance to leave no resultant hardship to either side.

24. It is satisfactorily established by the evidence on record that partial eviction necessarily involves structural alterations of the premises which besides being impracticable from the point of view of the proposed business to be carried on by the landlord, is also detrimental to the property which is admittedly a very old structure. The restrictions placed on the landlord's right to recover possession of the premises under the Act cannot be stretched to the extent where the landlord should suffer such consequence of a partial eviction.