JUDGMENT 1. - This is civil miscellaneous appeal by the plaintiffs against order of remand passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ajmer, Dated March 27, 1975 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 115 of 1974/179 of 1975. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for eviction of the defendant-respondent from their shop fully described in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint, on the ground that the plaintiffs required the premises reasonably and bonafide for their own use. The defendants contested the suit and denied that the demised premises were required reasonably and bonafide by the plaintiff-landlords. The trial Court, after evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-landlords required the shop reasonably and bonafide for their own use. It accordingly decreed the suit. The defendants then preferred an appeal against the decree passed by the trial Court. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, was amended by the Amending Act of 1976 to judge comparative hardship before passing a decree for eviction. The appellate Court, therefore, held that the decree for eviction cannot be allowed to remain intact unless the question of comparative hardship, as envisaged by Section 14(2) of the Amending Act, has been gone into. The learned Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal set aside the judgment and decree of the Court below and remanded the case to the trial Court with the direction that it shall allow the parties to amend their pleadings in view of Section 14(2) of the Amending Act of 1976, if they so desire. It was further directed that the trial Court shall frame an issue afresh in the light of Section 14(2) of the Amending Act for determining comparative hardship, after allowing the parties to lead evidence on the newly framed issue. The appellate Court also directed that after recording evidence on the newly framed issue, it shall decide the suit afresh. It is against this order of remand that the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal before this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The appellate Court also directed that after recording evidence on the newly framed issue, it shall decide the suit afresh. It is against this order of remand that the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal before this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is common ground between the parties that in view of coming into force of the Amending Act of 1976, the case will have to be sent back for deciding the question of comparative hardship before passing a decree on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. The only question, which arises for determination in this appeal, is whether the whole case should be remanded on the trial Court or an issue should be framed and remitted to the trial Court under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC ? The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to the decision of M/s. Bhairumal Basdev v. Lalit Kishore, 1976 Rent Control Reporter 521 : 1976 RLW 25. In this case, I have held that, in similar circumstances, Order 41 Rule 25 CPC applies and the proper order in such a case is to remit the issue to the lower Court and not to remand the case under Order 41 Rule 23 or Section 151 CPC. In view of the above decision, the order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained. 6. I, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court and direct that it shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law after remitting the issue quoted below to the trial Court with the direction that it (trial Court) shall record additional evidence of the parties on the issue and shall return the case together with its finding thereon and the reasons therefor within a particular period of time. It may be mentioned here that the evidence already on the record shall be read in evidence in deciding the remitted issue. The issue to be remitted would read as under:- "Whether having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the question whether any order reasonable accommodation is available to the landlord or to the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it ?" 7. The issue to be remitted would read as under:- "Whether having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the question whether any order reasonable accommodation is available to the landlord or to the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it ?" 7. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs in the appeal.Appeal allowed. *******