JUDGMENT P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. THIS appeal is by the tenants defendants and it arises out of a suit for ejectment. It is directed against the decree for ejectment, passed against the appellants ex parte by the learned trial Judge. 2. THE suit was brought on May 1, 1963, after service of the usual notice of ejectment, on the ground of the plaintiff's reasonable requirement of the disputed premises for her own use and occupation under the relevant rent control law, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The defendants appeared and filed a written statement, contesting the plaintiff's claim, but, as it appears, the suit was allowed to be decreed ex parte on the date of hearing. On this date, the defendants applied for examination of defendant No. 1 on commission. That application, for reasons, given by the learned trial Judge, was rejected, and, thereafter, the defendants did not appear and the suit was heard ex parte and decreed. 3. IN this appeal, Mr. Dev, appearing for the defendants appellants, has raised four contentions. IN the first place, he has contended that, the City Civil Court, in which the suit was filed and decreed, has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Secondly, he has contended that one of the defendants, defendant No. 6, was a minor at the date of the suit, but he was impleaded as major and, accordingly, the suit was net validly filed or validly prosecuted or validly decreed. Thirdly, Mr. Dev has contended that the learned trial Judge was wrong in accepting the plaintiff's case of reasonable requirement and his last submission is that, in any event, no decree, except for partial eviction, should have been passed in this case. We shall examine the above contentions one by one, but in our view, none of them has, on the materials before us, any substance. 4. ON the question of the City Civil Court's jurisdiction, the first argument of Mr. Deb is that, in the instant case, neither the value of the suit non of the disputed premises can be said to be below Rs. 10,000/-, and, accordingly, the City Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under the Amending Act (W. B. Act XXVII of 1957), the City Civil Court and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1957. 10,000/-, and, accordingly, the City Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under the Amending Act (W. B. Act XXVII of 1957), the City Civil Court and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1957. It is enough to say, for our present purpose, that the present suit being a suit for ejecment, and, on the admitted rental, the annual value being less than Rs. 10,000/-, the value of the suit would be below Rs. 10,000/-, and, accordingly, the City Civil Court had ample jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. We further held that, on the express wording of the above statute, Mr. Dev's second or extreme argument on the point that to give the City Civil Court jurisdiction neither the value of the premises should exceed Rs. 10,000/- cannot be accepted. On the second question, namely, the question of the alleged minor defendant's representation, it will be sufficient to point out that there are no materials on record to show that the said defendant was a minor at the date of the suit. The defendants, no doubt, applied for examination on commission of the mother, defendant No. 1, presumably for proving the said minority, but the said application was rightly r ejected by the learned trial Judge on. reasons, given by him. In view of the circumstances pointed out by the learned trial Judge, no grievance can be made by the defendants that they had no opportunity of leading appropriate evidence in the matter. Moreover, the defendant concerned, namely, defendant No. 6, appeared in the suit along with the other defendants as a major and so it hardly lies in the mouth of the defendants to claim that the said defendant was a minor at the date of the suit. On the above materials, the defendants would have no point on the said question of alleged minority of defendant No. 6 and their plea in that respect should be rejected. 5. ON the question of the plaintiff's reasonable requirement, the evidence, as it stands, sufficiently inclines in favour of the plaintiff. Indeed, on that evidence, there can be no other conclusion than this that the plaintiff is suffering from insufficient accommodation and is in need of the disputed premises. 5. ON the question of the plaintiff's reasonable requirement, the evidence, as it stands, sufficiently inclines in favour of the plaintiff. Indeed, on that evidence, there can be no other conclusion than this that the plaintiff is suffering from insufficient accommodation and is in need of the disputed premises. The evidence, as we have said above, is ex parte and the unchallenged and uncontradicted testimony on the plaintiff's side supports the learned trial Judge's conclusion in the plaintiff's favour on this point. We would, accordingly, affirm the said finding of the court below. 6. ON the question of partial eviction, the argument appears to proceed on some misconception. There are no materials before us to indicate that a part of the disputed premises would satisfy the plaintiff's requirement. It is obvious from the statute that, only when the record indicates and the court is satisfied that the plaintiff's requirement would be met by a part of the disputed premises, the question of partial eviction becomes germane for consideration. The absence of this preliminary element in the instant case would, obviously, rule out any consideration of the question of partial eviction. We would, accordingly, hold that this submission of Mr. Dev also cannot be accepted. On the above view, we would over-rule all the contentions, urged by Mr. Dev and this appeal would, accordingly, fail. 7. IN view, however, of the present situation as regards accommodation in this city, we will be prepared to grant the defendants time, in the first instance, till the end of May next, for vacating the disputed premises, subject to this that, if, within a fortnight from this date, an appropriate undertaking is given by any two of the adult male appellants, appellants No. 2 to 5, to vacate the disputed premises and make over vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiff respondent within September next, the above time or grace period will be enlarged till the end of the said month of September next, provided that, in either case, the defendants appellants go on depositing in the trial court, month by month, regularly, according to the English calendar, to the credit of the plaintiff decree-holder, a sum of Rs. 50/- per month, within the 15th of the next succeeding month according to the same calendar, on account of current mesne profits, and, in default of any two of such deposits, the above provision for time or grace period, be it the longer or the: shorter one, will automatically lapse and this decree for eviction will become executable forthwith. 8. SUBJECT as above, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in this Court. Be it expressly mentioned that, if any amount be deposited in pursuance of this order or if any amount has been deposited, either in court or with the Rent Controller, on account of rent or mesne profits of the disputed premises, the plaintiff will be entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security therefor.