( 1 ) THIS revision petition is by the tenant preferred under S. 50 of the mysore Rent Control Act ('act' for short ). It is directed against an order made by the learned District Judge, Coorg, Mercara, an appellate authority under the Act, in HRC Appeal No. 3 of 1971, whereby partial eviction of the suit premises was decreed. That was an appeal by the landlord directed against an order refusing the decree of eviction made by the munsiff at Virajpet in HRC 39 of 1968. ( 2 ) THE case of the landlord is, that the suit premises were leased to the tenant quite some time ago and the said premises were required for his bona fide use and occupation, the need in particular being that his children have to be accommodated for the purpose of conveniently carrying on their education, in certain educational institutions in Gonikoppal at present he is residing in a village by name Kalatamadu, which is said to be about 5 miles by road from Gomkoppal. The defence of the tenant is that there are no bonafides in the claim of the landlord and his requirement is also not reasonable. Although the landlord lives in a village as averred by him his children have been attending the educational istitutions like any other child of that village by walking across the fields by way of a short cut. Indeed his case is that none walks on the road for the purpose of attending schools. It is contended that having regard to the history of the relations between the parties as evidenced by certain Court proceedings and other personal transactions, it would be clear that the landlord is more actuated by a desire to secure higher rents than requiring the premises for the purpose stated. It is also contended that the balance of hardship was in his favour and against the landlord. ( 3 ) THE learned Munsiff, came to the conclusion that there were no bona fides in the claim of the landlord and he was actuated by a desire to secure enhancement of rent and if a decree for eviction were to be made it would cause greater hardship to the tenant. He therefore refused to grant the decree for eviction. He therefore refused to grant the decree for eviction. ( 4 ) ON appeal by the landlord, the learned District Judge, came to the conclusion that the claim of the landlord was bona fide and reasonable within the meaning of clause (h) of the proviso to S. 21 (1) of the Act. On the question of hardship he came to the conclusion that the landlord would not be entitled to the entire premises, but having regard to all the circumstances of the case a partial eviction of the residential portion of the premises as per the provision of S. 21 (4) of the Act would meet the ends of justice. Aggrieved by this order the tenant has approached this Court. ( 5 ) IN support of the petition Sri C. M. Monappa, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, urged several contentions, which are unnecessary to set out as in my opinion the judgment in revision cannot be sustained and the matter will have to go back to that Court for a fresh consideration of the appeal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein. On behalf of the respondent Sri A. B. Mandappa, the learned advocate, strenuously sought to support the order of the learned District judge by referring to the relevant portions of the judgment and the evidence adduced in the case. ( 6 ) ON a careful consideration of the matter, the judgment impugned herein deserves to be set aside and for the following reasons: (i) On behalf of the tenant two witnesses have been examined, viz. , rws. 1 and 2, to show that there is considerable dearth of accommodation in Gonikoppal and the landlord had made active attempts to claim an enhancement of rent. The evidence of these two witnesses has a bearing prima facie on the question of bonafides and the reasonable requirement of the landlord. That this is more or less so could be gathered from the judgment of the trial Court. The evidence of these witnesses does not appear to have been examined in the light of the discussion of the trial court bearing on such a question. That this is more or less so could be gathered from the judgment of the trial Court. The evidence of these witnesses does not appear to have been examined in the light of the discussion of the trial court bearing on such a question. (ii) In ordering partial eviction of the suit premises especially the residential portion of the premises, the learned District Judge seems to have been influenced by the fact that one of the learned Counsel appearing before him had made a statement that the premises had two separate entrances. Whether such a statement is correct or not had to be judged from the evidence on record. It is to be seen from a statement made by the landlord in an affidavit filed in support of his application under S. 29 (4) of the Act, filed before this Court, that there may not be any such separate entrances as submitted by the learned Counsel before the learned District judge, If there was any doubt in regard to this question, it was open to the District Judge to have exercised his discretion and called for a finding from the trial Court after giving an opportunity to both the parties. It cannot be gainsaid that one of the principal factors to be taken into account for a Court to direct partial eviction is whether the tenements are severable and convenient for the occupation of one or the other party. This apart. S. 21 (4) of the Act, the latter part of which has reference to such partial eviction, clearly imposes a condition on a Court in regard to hardship, which being a question of fact must be found by a Court as a condition precedent for the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. The condition is that such eviction could be ordered only if it does not cause hardship either to the landlord or to the tenant. To put it differently, if it is likely to cause hardship to any one of them, it is not open to the Court to decree partial eviction. The condition is that such eviction could be ordered only if it does not cause hardship either to the landlord or to the tenant. To put it differently, if it is likely to cause hardship to any one of them, it is not open to the Court to decree partial eviction. Further, without intending to enumerate exhaustively the circumstances relevant, it may be stated that a Court called upon to direct partial eviction as aforesaid must have the necessary material before it such as the size of the premises, the convenience of bifurcation of such premises into more than one tenement and the convenience of accommodation in regard to the requirement of either party. All these factors have not been considered at all by the learned District judge in the judgment impugned. Further more, it is to be seen, if and when such bifurcation or partial eviction is made, a question would also arise as to the apportionment of rent in regard to each of those separate tenements. In regard to this latter aspect, it seems to me that it is open to the learned District Judge to make some directions in that behalf. (iii) On the question of balance of hardship the learned District Judge has not considered the material evidence bearing on this question, especially the evidence of RW. 1. ( 7 ) FOR the above reasons, this petition succeeds and is allowed The order of the learned District Judge, Coorg-Mercara, in HRC Appeal No. 3 of 1971 is hereby set aside. The matter will now stand remitted to that court for a fresh disposal as observed above In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. ( 8 ) I. A. NO 2 filed by the landlord is not pressed and it is therefore dismissed. --- *** --- .