JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties in this Second Appeal, when the same was admitted on 3rd October, 1985,following two points were formulated as arising for decision in appeal: (1) Whether the Courts below have erred in law in not considering the case for partial eviction in view of the mandate given by the legislature under Section 14 of the Rajasthan premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act? (2) Whether the Lower appellate Court seriously erred in holding and decreeing the suit of the Plaintiffs for arrears of rent which fell due during the life time of Lunidamal Without obtaining the probate of the will? 2. With regard to the first point, it was observed that the Courts below had not considered the aspect whether partial eviction of the tenant will meet the bonafide and reasonable necessity of the plaintiffs. This Court there fore framed an issue on the point and remitted the same to the Munsif, Pali for taking evidence on the issue and record its findings after affording both the parties on opportunity of hearing. The Munsif, Pali has sent his finding on the issue framed by this Court and has decided the issue in favour of landlords. The Munsif, Pali has held that partial eviction of the tenant from the suit premises will not meet the reasonable and bonafide necessity of the Plaintiffs. Thus the first point formulated by this Court on 3rd October 1985, should be decided against the appellant for the reason that it has been found as a fact by the first appellate Court that the suit premises are reasonably and bonafide required by the Plaintiffs-Landlords for their personal use and occupation. 3. The Learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant, however, strenuously contended that it is an admitted fact that the suit premises were let out to the appellant by Lunidamal who has expired. The case of the plaintiffs was that Lunidamal had executed a will in favour of the plaintiffs and on the death of Lunidamal on 24th April, 1975, they became landlords of the suit premises in relation to the appellant under the Will. The case of the plaintiffs was that Lunidamal had executed a will in favour of the plaintiffs and on the death of Lunidamal on 24th April, 1975, they became landlords of the suit premises in relation to the appellant under the Will. It urged that the first appellate Court has erred in decreeing the suit of plaintiffs for arrears of rent for the period--1st May, 1973 to 24th April, 1975 which had fallen due during the life time of the deceased Lunidamal without obtaining probate of the Will. It appears that the question regarding necessity to obtain probate was decided in favour of the plaintiffs by the trial Court on 28th March, 1979. 4. Issue No. 10 relating to this matter was not pressed before the first appellate court and arguments were confined by both the sides to issues No. 3 to 6 and, therefore, the first appellate Court did not deal with this matter. 5. Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 makes it clear that Sub-section (1) of the said section, in its application to the Hindus, applies only in the case of Wills made by them, where such Wills are of the classes specified in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Will in the instant case was neither made within the territories which on or after 1st September, 1970 were subject to the lieutenant Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Judicature of Madras and Bombay and nor it relates to immovable properties situated within those territories or limits. The Will in question was made by the deceased Lunidamal in Rajasthan and it also does not relate to any immovable property situated within the aforesaid territories or limits. Clearly, therefore, it is not a Will of the classes specified in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Clearly, therefore, no probate of the Will was necessary. I find support in my view from a decision of this Court in Mst. Jadav v. Ram Swarup and another, AIR 1961 Rajasthan 40 . 6. In Mst Jadav's case, a Will was executed in Rajasthan in relation to property in Rajasthan. I find support in my view from a decision of this Court in Mst. Jadav v. Ram Swarup and another, AIR 1961 Rajasthan 40 . 6. In Mst Jadav's case, a Will was executed in Rajasthan in relation to property in Rajasthan. It was held that it was not alleged that the Will executed within the territories mentioned in Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 213 or that it related to the property situated within the territories mentioned in Clause (b) and clearly, therefore, the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 were not attracted. Consequently, there is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that that plaintiffs suit, with respect to the arrears of rent fell due during the life time of deceased Lunidamal, was not maintainable without their having obtaining probate of the will. 7. During the course of arguments, a contention was also advanced that in any event, no decree for arrears of rent which had fallen due during the life time of deceased Lunidamal could be passed unless a succession certificate was obtained by the plaintiffs. For this purpose, reliance was placed upon the Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Firstly it may be mentioned that no such plea was taken by the tenant either in the written statement or before the trial Court or the first appellate Court, Apart from that, it is quite clear that the first appellate Court has only passed a decree for ejectment of the appellant from the suit premises and no decree, for the arrears of rent has been passed. With regard to the question of the ejectment of the appellant on grounds of default in payment or tender of rent, all that the first appellate court has stated in its judgment is that the appellant had committed default in payment of rent, but since he had deposited the arrears of rent in court under the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan premised (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, the plaintiffs were not entitled to get a decree for ejectment against the appellant on grounds of arrears of rent, The first appellate Court has not passed any decree in favour of the plaintiffs for arrears of rent which had fallen due during the life time of of deceased Lunidamal and, therefore, the bar created by Section 214(1)(a) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is not attracted. 8. The learned Counsel for the defendant appellant, in the last, submitted that the appellant should be granted some reasonable time to vacate the suit premises. It would be proper to grant three months' time to defendant-appellant to vacate the suit premises. This second appeal is dismissed However, the defendant-appellant is granted three months' time to vacate the suit-Premises. The plaintiffs-respondents will get cost of this appeal from the appellant.Appeal dismissed with costs. *******