JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. Perused the impugned judgment dated 7.12.93 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge No. 2, Udaipur, whereby he dismissed appellant's first appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.7.89 of the learned M.J.M., Udaipur ordering for appellant's ejectment from the suit premises. 2. Both the lower Courts have given a concurrent finding that the plaintiff respondent has a bonafide and reasonable necessity of the suit premises and that more hardship shall be caused to the respondent, if the decree for ejectment is not passed. These findings are based on evidence and are not perverse. 3. Mr. Shreemali has vehemently contended that the lower Courts have not given any finding regarding the partial eviction as required under Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, and thus, both the lower Courts have committed an illegality. 4. Mr. Maheshwari has submitted that it is true that even in the absence of specific pleadings, it is a mandate in Section 14(2) of the aforesaid Act for finding out as to whether there is any possibility of partial eviction of the tenant from the suit premises, but an objective view has to be taken into consideration. In the instant case, the family of plaintiff respondent consists of seven members i.e. plaintiff himself, his wife and five grown-up sons and daughters and the accommodation available with him is only one room, one kitchen and one store. On the other hand, suit premises consists of three rooms, one kitchen, one bathroom, one latrine, verandah and a garage and moreover it is not possible to effect a partial eviction of the suit premises. 5. I have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions. In Raj Kumar and another v. Mehar Chand reported in 1990(2) RLR 731 , the demised premises consisted of two rooms with a kitchen, latrine and bathroom. The family of the landlord consisted of five members including three studying sons aged 20, 18 and 16 years. The lower Courts did not give any finding about the possibility of the partial eviction. Keeping in view all the proved facts and circumstances of that case, it was held that there was no possibility of the partial eviction and non-giving of any finding by the Courts below on that count did not affect the decision because the things were so apparent that partial eviction was not possible . 6. Keeping in view all the proved facts and circumstances of that case, it was held that there was no possibility of the partial eviction and non-giving of any finding by the Courts below on that count did not affect the decision because the things were so apparent that partial eviction was not possible . 6. In the instant case also, keeping in view the accommodation available with the plaintiff-respondent and the accommodation available in the demised premises, partial eviction is not at all possible. Therefore, it will be a futile exercise in remitting the case for deciding the question of possibility of partial eviction. 7. No other substantial question of law is involved in this civil second appeal. In my considered opinion, this second appeal is devoid of any force and substance and the same is hereby dismissed. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, time up to 31st August, 1994 is granted to the appellant-Todar Mal to vacate the demised premises on the condition that he will submit a written undertaking before the trial Court to the effect that he shall vacate the demised premises on or before 31st August, 1994 and that he will not part with the possession to any other person and shall continue to pay/deposit monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 301/-. The said undertaking be filed on or before 21.1.1994. 8. With these observations, this civil second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree be drawn accordingly.Appeal dismissed. *******