Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to bring up and quash the order of the first respondent, the State of Travancore-Cochin, in No. D. Dis. 9038/52/PWC dated the 11th September 1953 which was passed in revision under the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Order. 2. The petitioner is the owner of Sy. No. 2881, Vanchiyoor Pakuthy, which has an extent of 64 cents. After erecting two buildings thereon numbered as 646 and 647 in the Trivandrum Municipality he on 11.9.1122 leased them to the second respondent for a period of three months on a rental of Rs. 100 per month. Along with this lease arrangement there was another independent arrangement in respect of the entire site as also the aforesaid two buildings. The arrangement was to the effect that the second respondent should put up two new buildings n the site according to agreed specifications at the expense of the petitioner. The construction was to be completed within three months so that at the end of the third month when the arrangement would commence to operate there would be four buildings. A total rental of Rs. 250 per month was fixed for all the four buildings payable quarterly. An amount of Rs. 10 was fixed as the rental of the site per month which was also payable once in three months. It was stipulated that the holdings of the second respondent thus created was not transferable. It was also stipulated that besides ordinary repairs no substantial improvements or alterations should be made in the buildings. Pursuant to the aforesaid arrangement the second respondent put up one new building which was numbered as 646-A. The other building that he was due to put up was commenced but has not yet been completed. Seeing that the fourth building had not been completed as agreed the petitioner took the second respondent to task and the answer was that the building was not put up on account of reasons beyond his control and that notwithstanding the non-completion thereof the arrangement agreed to would operate and continue. This was in Karkitakam 1122. On 1.2.1124 the second respondent assigned his interests in favour of the third. This was in Karkitakam 1122. On 1.2.1124 the second respondent assigned his interests in favour of the third. Afterwards the petitioner filed O.S. No. 212 of 1124 of the Trivandrum District Court in Mithunam of that year for eviction from the properties with all the improvement thereon impleading respondents 2 and 3. The third respondent claimed value of improvements. The plaintiff besides seeking recovery of property, claimed damages for the non-completion of the fourth building pursuant to the aforesaid agreement. That suit is still pending. On 16.3.1125 the petitioner filed a Rent Control Petition before the Rent Controller under the Travancore Buildings Rent Control Order. In that petition he sought eviction of respondents 2 and 3 from the three buildings numbered 646, 647 and 646-A as also from the garage and out-houses in the property. The incomplete building on the site was not sought to be recovered. No demarcation of the site appurtenant to the three specified buildings or the other structures mentioned in the petition and of that appurtenant to the unfinished structure was made in the petition. The eviction was sought on all the four grounds on which it could have been, namely, transfer of the holding by the tenant without the land-lord's consent, default in payment of rent, requirement for land-lord's own occupation and waste. The third respondent objected to the eviction sought. The Rent controller ordered eviction on the first two grounds, finding against the existence of the third and fourth grounds. This order was confirmed by the Collector on appeal. The Government vacated the order for eviction in revision. It is this order of Government which is sought to be quashed by these proceedings. 3. The eviction that is sought is not of the entire holding, but only of a part thereof and the part whose eviction is sought has not even been clearly specified in the petition. On the portion whose eviction is not sought there exists the unfinished building. 4. The Rent Control Order contemplates eviction of tenants from their holding as a whole. No partial eviction appears to be contemplated. It is not necessary, for us in this case to discuss or decide the question whether partial eviction may not be available at all under the Rent Control Order. 4. The Rent Control Order contemplates eviction of tenants from their holding as a whole. No partial eviction appears to be contemplated. It is not necessary, for us in this case to discuss or decide the question whether partial eviction may not be available at all under the Rent Control Order. Both the grounds on which eviction was ordered in this case relate to the entire holding and if eviction were to be ordered based on those grounds it ought to be of the entire holding and not of any part thereof. In a case where the cause for eviction relates to the entire holding we are clear that the eviction should be complete and not piecemeal. The eviction sought in this case, however, is as already stated, partial, which is illegal and the order for eviction passed by the Rent Controller which was confirmed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained and its vacation by the Government on revision is, therefore, correct and ought to be upheld though not for the reasons stated by the Government in their order. The Original Petition which seeks the quashing of the Government's order in revision should, therefore, be dismissed. 5. Mr. Krishnamoorthi Iyer, learned counsel for the third respondent, submits that his client would be agreeable to have the property surrendered according to the decree that would be passed in the aforesaid O.S. No. 212 of 1124 and that his client waives the right to have proceedings before the Rent Controller and an order for eviction before he is actually evicted from the property. 6. In the circumstances we make no order for costs. Dismissed.