( 1 ) THIS is a tenant's revision petition under S. 50 of the Karnataka Rent control Act, 1961. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts lie within a narrow compass and they may be stated as follows: The premises bearing CTS. 3166/b, Khade Bazar, Belgaum, belong to the respondent ('the landlord' ). The landlord is a dealer in electrical goods and he is having a shop for that purpose on the ground floor of the premises. The petitioner ('the tenant') is a famous artist, who has redently retired from service. He has been occupying the first floor of the premises. The landlord brought an action for eviction stating, inter alia, that his electrical goods business started in 1971 has appreciated by leaps and bounds and in order to keep pace with the growing demands of the business additional storage space is required by him. The defence of the tenant, inter alia, was that the premises in the occupation of the landlord are sufficient for the purpose of his business and the upstair portion cannot be used as a godown. He also said that greater hardship would be caused if he is evicted therefrom. The learned Munsiff, however, upheld the plea of the landlord and, accordingly, made a decree for eviction. The learned Dist Judge also agreed with that view and dismissed the appeal of the tenant. ( 3 ) THE main contention urged, before me, for the tenant was that the Courts below ought to have made a decree for partial eviction, when the tenant was agreeable to part with a portion of his premises. But, counsel for the landlord urged that that plea was neither raised in the pleadings nor urged before the Court of first instance and, therefore, it must not be considered. It may be relevant to state that that contention has been raised in the appeal; but, the learned Judge has summarily rejected it. ( 4 ) NOW, I take up the question whether the tenant, without raising the plea for partial eviction, could urge for it at any stage of the proceedings. ( 5 ) THE power of the Court to make a decree for partial eviction is located in the second part of sub-sec (4) of S. 21 of the Karnataka Rent control Act, 1961. ( 5 ) THE power of the Court to make a decree for partial eviction is located in the second part of sub-sec (4) of S. 21 of the Karnataka Rent control Act, 1961. It provides as follows :" If the Court is satisfied that no hardship would be caused either to the tenant or to the landlord by passing the decree in respect of a part of the premises, the Court shall pass the decree in respect of such part only. " ( 6 ) IT seems to me that, having regard to the object and scheme of the Rent Control Act and the protection intended to be given to the tenants, the failure of the tenant to raise a plea for partial eviction does not relieve the Court of its duty to consider it. The Rent Control Act, it must be remembered, was enacted for the protection of tenants. It is only on specified grounds set out under the proviso to S. 21 (l) of the Karnataka rent Control Act, 1961, the landlord could seek eviction. When he comes to the Court on any one of those grounds, he has to prove every ingredient which entitled him to a decree for eviction. When he seeks eviction on the ground of bona fide and reasonable need, he must establish his case. Ordinarily, in all such proceedings, the tenants would be fighting out the case and resisting the total eviction The tenant, at the beginning or at the time of filing his objection statement, may not be in a position to anticipate the extent of the bona fide requirement of the landlord. He may come to know of the requirement only when the evidence is produced or during the arguments in the case. He could, therefore, at that stage, alternatively suggest to the Court that the landlord does not require the entire premises and a partial eviction would meet his requirement without any hardship either to himself or to the landlord. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to expect from the tenant to raise the plea in the objection statement itself that a partial eviction would be sufficient to meet the landlord's reasonable requirement. I do not, however, mean that the tenant, in his objection statement, cannot suggest a division. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to expect from the tenant to raise the plea in the objection statement itself that a partial eviction would be sufficient to meet the landlord's reasonable requirement. I do not, however, mean that the tenant, in his objection statement, cannot suggest a division. He may suggest it; but, in the absence of evidence relating to the bona fide requirement of the landlord, he is not obliged to suggest a particular division and ask for a partial eviction. To the same effect was the view of the Calcutta High Court, while dealing with a similar provision in the West Bengal Rent Control Act, 1950. P. N. Mookerjee, J, speaking for the Bench, in Krishna Das Nandy v. Bidhan Ch Roy, 63 Calwn. 29 @ 54. at page 54, observed:". . . . The defendant's failure to do so, however, does not relieve the Court of its duty under the statute and, having regard to the object and scheme of the disputed proviso and, particularly, its wording, it seems to us that it is open to the Court-and that, indeed, seems to be its duty-to consider this question of partial eviction, if it thinks on the materials before it, that that ought to satisfy substantially the plaintiff's reasonable requirement of occupation and, if the defendant agrees to occupy the portion of the premises that will be left after satisfying the plaintiff's reasonable requirements, to pass a decree for partial eviction in terms of the proviso if the same be otherwise applicable. . . "the learned Judge continued :". . . . . The defendant certainly cannot be expected to anticipate what portion the Court will take as sufficient for the plaintiff's legitimate purpose or reasonable requirement of occupation and to agree in advance to occupy the rest without knowing wha,t that 'rest' will contain. He may, no doubt, suggest a division or a particular division but he is not bound to do so. There is thus enough justification under the statute to allow this plea of partial eviction to be taken by the defendant for the first time before the appellate Court if it had not been considered or considered properly by the trial Court. . . . " ( 7 ) IN the above view, I would entertain the plea of the tenant. . . . " ( 7 ) IN the above view, I would entertain the plea of the tenant. The learned Judge, while considering this question, has observed thus :" It seems to me having regard to the growing need of the landlord's business, it would not be proper to limit his requirement by offering him only the two rooms in the occupation of the tenant. There is no knowing that a little later he may not need the hall in the possession of the tenant also apart from the two rooms, the surrender of which is now offered, in which event he would again be put to the need of seeking for eviction of the tenant from the hall also. It seems to me that directing partial eviction as proposed would be to indulge in some kind of a speculation that for all times to come the need of the landlord who has founded a flourishing business would be sufficiently static as to be satisfied with extra storage space provided by the two rooms, the surrender of which is now offered. I am therefore not inclined to accept his submission that a partial eviction may be ordered in this case. " ( 8 ) FROM the above observations, it is seen that the tenant came forward to surrender two rooms in his possession. The learned Judge, however, refused to examine it on the ground that he would be indulging in some kind of speculation. The learned Judge, in my view, took the mattear very lightly. He ought to have bestowed serious thought over the question and ought to have examined how the landlord would be prejudiced if the offer made by the tenant was accepted. The provisions relating to partial eviction, in my view, are based on a sound principle of "live and let live" where we are faced with a problem of acute shortage of accommodation. The Court should try to give effect to this declared policy of the Legislature if, on the evidence produced by the parties, the partial eviction would cause no hardship either to the tenant or to the landlord. If the evidence on record is found to be insufficient to examine the question, it would be the duty of the Court to call for additional evidence. If the evidence on record is found to be insufficient to examine the question, it would be the duty of the Court to call for additional evidence. ( 9 ) NOW, turning to the merits of the matter, I find that the requirement of the landlord is not such that he is in dire need of the entire premises under the occupation of the tenant. Let me accept that his business is rapidly growing; but, it has got its own limitation if one looks at the investment he has made and the number of persons engaged for the purpose. His turnover is less than a lakh of rupees. He cannot store heavy machineries on the first floor. He could store only light or fancy articles. His need, in my opinion, could be met if half of the premises is delivered to him. On the type of division, I asked Counsel on both sides which portion of the premises could be conveniently surrendered to the landlord. They agreed that the tenant may be evicted from the hall measuring 19' x 16'. That hall is independent from the adjacent two rooms. No hardship, therefore, would be caused to any party. The tenant appears to be very generous. He also agreed that he would continue to pay the existing rent at the rate of Rs. 55 even for the remaining portion of the premises. ( 10 ) IN the result, I allow the revision petition in part; modify the decree directing the eviction of the tenant from the hall measuring 19' x 16'. Time to surrender possession is two months. In the circumstances, I make no order as to costs here and below. --- *** --- .