Judgment B.L.Yadav, J. 1. This is a defendants Second Appeal arising out of a suit for eviction of the defendants from the shop and for recovery of arrears of rent and in case the defendants-appellants did not vacate the shop in question within the time allowed by the Court, the same may be delivered to the plaintiff through the process of Court. 2. The suit was filed with the averment that the defendants-appellants were holding front portion of the suit premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 35.00 taken from Subhash Prasad, but on 20.1.1976 he purchase the land including the shop for a sum of Rs. 18,500.00 and on 12.12.1976 the plaintiff redeemed the property from the mortgagee and paid Rs. 700.00 . In this way he came landlord and the defendants are running a medicine shop in the name of Azad Medical Hall, but they failed to pay rent. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellants denying the plaint allegation, stating that the suit was not maintainable nor there was any cause of action and the same was barred by limitation and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. The defendants have got perpetual lease for the shop and they are not tenant nor liable to ejectment. The defendants have been injucted in the shop in question as tenant by Bidya Bhushan alias Kedar Sah, the original owner and not by Subhash Prasad. The plaintiff has got other accommodation and therefore his need was not genuine nor bona fide and that the defendants are not in arrears of rent nor liable to ejectment and so the suit was liable to be dismissed. 4. The trial court has dismissed the suit but the lower appellate court has decreed the same, and allowed the appeal. This is how the present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants. 5. By an order dated 4.2.1991 this Court directed the court below in view of the Proviso to Sec. 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control, Act, 1982 for short "the Act" to record evidence on the question of partial eviction and thereafter forward the same to this Court. Again a reminder was ordered to be sent on 9.12.1991. Thereafter on 18.12.1992 an explanation was called from the trial court as to why evidence on partial eviction has not been recorded. Again a reminder was ordered to be sent on 9.12.1991. Thereafter on 18.12.1992 an explanation was called from the trial court as to why evidence on partial eviction has not been recorded. Ultimately this appeal was admitted on 15.4.1993 primarily on the question whether the need of the plaintiff-respondent can be satisfied by partial eviction of the appellants and as the lower appellate court did not record any finding whether its judgment could be vitiated. 6. By an order dated 20.9.1993 this Court directed the lower appellate court to record findings on the question of partial eviction of the appellants on the basis of the evidence recorded by the trial court in view of the proviso to Sec. 11(1)(C) of the Act. Thereafter the learned First Additional District Judge decided that point by his judgment and order dated 5.1.1994, holding under paragraph 27 of his judgment as follows: 27. Therefore after a careful consideration of the material available on record I am of the view that partial eviction of the tenant from the suit premises would substantially satisfy the reasonable requirement of the landlord. If a 2 ft. strip east to west at the southern end of the shop adjacent to the passage is carved out and the southern wall of the shop is erected at that place, the passage would become 5 ft. wide and would serve the purpose of the landlord. Thus the above point in issue is decided accordingly. 7. The learned Counsel for the parties were heard at considerable length but as the proviso to Sec. 11(1)(C) of the Act was mandatory and in pursuance of the order of this Court, findings have been recorded by the lower appellate court and it has been held under paragraph 27 of the judgment dated 5.1.1994 that partial eviction of the tenant from the suit premises would substantially satisfy the reasonable requirement of the landlord and if a 2 ft. strip east to west at the southern end of the shop adjacent to the passage is carved out and the southern wall of the shop is erected at that place the passage would become 5 ft. wide and would serve the purpose of the landlord. This finding has been recorded in pursuance of the direction of this Court as indicated above and also in pursuance of the statutory requirement of the proviso to Sec. 11(1)(C) of the Act. wide and would serve the purpose of the landlord. This finding has been recorded in pursuance of the direction of this Court as indicated above and also in pursuance of the statutory requirement of the proviso to Sec. 11(1)(C) of the Act. Nothing has been shown from either of the parties as to how these findings could be said to be in correct or not based on the evidence on record, these findings are specific and in reply to the direction of this Court and the proviso of Sec. 11(1)(C) of the Act, under the circumstances this Second Appeal is to be decided in view of the findings recorded by the lower appellate court by its judgment dated 5.1.1994. 8. The present Second Appeal is accordingly decided in terms of the findings recorded in the judgment dated 5.1.1994 and the decrees of the trail court and the lower appellate court are modified accordingly and the findings recorded in paragraph 27 of the judgment dated 5.1.1994 shall form part of the decree of this Second Appeal. This appeal is thus disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.