Judgment B. L. Yadav, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs second Appeal in a suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises as given in the plaint as well as for arrears of rent from the defendant. 2. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondent and the averments made in the plaint were denied. 3. The Trial Court decreed the suit to the extent that the defendant was required to pay arrears of rent and also other outstanding dues and to vacate the suit premises within three months from the date of the order failing which plaintiffs will be at liberty to vacate the suit premises through the process of the court. The defendant preferred appeal before the District Judge and Ist additional District Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, by the decree dated 8th may, 1995 has partly decreed the suit and allowed the appeal in part to the extent that in view of Proviso to section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (compendiously the Act), the requirement of the plaintiffs can be substantially satisfied by eviction of the defendant-tenant from the part of the accommodation and they were also entitled to arrears of rent @ Rs.100/- per month for the month of May, 1985 till August, 1986 which came to the extent of Rs.1600/-. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that it was not within the pleadings either of the defendant or the plaintiffs that eviction of defendant from a part of the accommodation can satisfy the requirements of the plaintiffs in view of Proviso to Sec.11 of the act. Reliance was placed on M/s. Bata india Ltd. V/s. Dr. Ma. Qamruzzama, 1993 (1) PLJR 87. It was also contended that findings about the arrears of rent were also not correct. 5. Having scrutinised the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, suffice it tp say that the Proviso to section 11 of the Act does not require any pleading that just a part eviction of the accommodation can satisfy the requirements of the landlord. The section has to be read with Proviso and other provisions. 5. Having scrutinised the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, suffice it tp say that the Proviso to section 11 of the Act does not require any pleading that just a part eviction of the accommodation can satisfy the requirements of the landlord. The section has to be read with Proviso and other provisions. While interpreting section 11 of the Act I am reminded of an old Lat in Maxim "injustum EST nisi ZOTA DEGE INSPECTA DE una ALIQUA EJUS PARTICULA proposita JUDICARE VEL respondere", which connotes that it shall be unjust to refer to only one part without examining the entire provision with other relevant provisions. The section has to be read as a whole. In case the Proviso is excluded in that event the remaining section does require pleadings to get a decree for ejectment either on the basis of act against the lease, the default; arrears of rent and bona fide needs. The functions of this Proviso may be noticed in many folds : (a) the main function of the proviso is to carve out an exception to the main enactment which cannot be interpreted so as to set at naught the main enactment. To put it precisely the functions of the proviso are qualifying or excepting certain provisons from the main enactment. (b) It may entirely change the very concept of the intendment of the enactment by insisting on certain mandatory conditions to be fulfilled in order to make the enactment workable. (c) It may be so embedded in the act itself as to become integral part of the enactment and thus acquire the tenor and colour of the substantive enactment itself. (See S. Sundaram V/s. V. R. Pattabhiraman, a. I. R.1985 S. C.582 and A. N. Sehgal and others V/s. Raja Ram Sheoram and others, AIR 1991 S. C.1406 ). 6. In the present context the proviso added to section 11 provides that before deciding the application or the suit for the ejectment of the tenant based on personal necessity it shall be the duty of the court that it must pass an order as to whether the needs of the landlord can be satisfied by directing the tenant to vacate a portion in his possession and for that purpose tenants were also heard or given opportunity. This was the legislative requirement and it reflects the intendment of the legislature. This was the legislative requirement and it reflects the intendment of the legislature. The expression as the court thinks fit is sufficient enough to indicate that the main object of the proviso as to whether the needs of the landlord can be satisfied with the partial eviction of the tenant need not be pleaded either by the tenants or by the landlords, rather it is statutory requirement which casts duty on the court to ascertain this aspect of the matter. 7. It would not be in apt to say that the provision in the proviso is somewhat similar to the provisions of order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of civil Procedure. Even though the respondents might not have based the appeal or cross-objection never-theless if the court thinks under the circumstances of the case that some relief can be granted to the respondents also, in that event the court shall have power to the same effect. 8. In Division Bench case M/s Bata india Ltd. V/s. Dr. Md. Qamruzzama, 1993 (1) P. L. J. R.87 (supra) the following observations may be noticed : "it would appear that while the main clause entitles the landlord to secure eviction of the tenant on the ground mentioned therein, the proviso mandates the court to hold enquiry as to whether the plaintiffs needs can be substantially satisfied by part eviction of the tenant from the premises. The question is who has to prove that the requirement can be satisfied substantially by part eviction. In our opinion, the landlord cannot be saddled with the onus of proof in this regard. He having proved that he requires the building which means the whole suit premises, he cannot be expected or asked to prove by evidence that his need can be satisfied by part eviction. That will amount to asking him to prove the negative. In our opinion, once the landlord has proved the need of the premises, onus shifts on the tenant. The expression and the tenant agrees to such occupation strengthens the view that while holding enquiry on the question of partial eviction it is the tenant who has to express his readiness and willingness for part occupation of the premises". 9. In our opinion, once the landlord has proved the need of the premises, onus shifts on the tenant. The expression and the tenant agrees to such occupation strengthens the view that while holding enquiry on the question of partial eviction it is the tenant who has to express his readiness and willingness for part occupation of the premises". 9. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that it is required to be pleaded, rather it is the duty of the court to consider it necessary as to part eviction can satisfy substantially the requirement of the plaintiffs. Thus, even though the matter may not be pleaded either by the defendant or the plaintiff but the court, if so required, can ask the defendant and plaintiff to lead evidence to satisfy the requirement of the proviso to section 11 of the Act. 10. As regards second submission the lower appellate court after considering the entire evidence on record has come to the conclusion that plaintiffs would be entitled to arrears of rent @ Rs.100/- per month since May, 1985 till August, 1986. The finding is based on the question of fact. 11. I dont find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed summarily under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the code of Civil Procedure. Appeal dismissed.