JUDGMENT : 1. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction against the appellant on the ground that the disputed premises is required reasonably and bona fide for the residence of herself and her family and in case a decree of eviction is not passed the plaintiff will suffer greater hardship in comparison to the defendant-appellant. The Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his judgment and decree dated 29.9.1972, decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and decree the defendant appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his judgment and decree dated 31.7.1995. This decree has been challenged in this Civil Second Appeal. 2. Both the lower Courts concurrently found that the suit premises is required reasonably and bonafide by the plaintiff-respondent. Both the lower Courts also found that in case the suit for eviction is not decreed, the plaintiff respondent will suffer greater hardship in comparison to the appellant. The question of partial eviction was also decided in favour of plaintiff respondent. The point argued before this Court by the counsel for the defendant-appellant is that the question regarding partial eviction has been decided arbitrarily by both the Courts without framing an issue and without taking into consideration the accommodation available in the disputed premises. 3. Counsel for the appellant submits that from the site-plan of the disputed premises, it appears that there are several rooms in the disputed premises. The lower Courts should have granted a decree only for partial eviction and not of the whole house. 4. On the other hand Shri Hari Acharya, brother of the plaintiff-respondents submits that there is only one bath-room, one latrine and only one common approach in the disputed premises and in case decree for partial eviction is granted, it will cause greater inconvenience to the plaintiff. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgments reported in Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam & Ors. v. Om Prakash and S.N. Nagaraja Setty v. Bramalavathamma . He further submits that the plaintiff is an old Vaishnav lady, whereas the defendant-appellant is by caste Sindhi and there is vast difference in their diets. Though there are several rooms in the disputed house, but those are small kotharies. Under such circumstances, it is not possible to divide the disputed premises. He further submits that the plaintiff is an old Vaishnav lady, whereas the defendant-appellant is by caste Sindhi and there is vast difference in their diets. Though there are several rooms in the disputed house, but those are small kotharies. Under such circumstances, it is not possible to divide the disputed premises. He further submits that according to defendant-appellant, there are 32 members in his family. In case the disputed premises is divided, the need of both the parties can not be satisfied. The lower Appellate court has given cogent reasons while rejecting the argument of the defendant for partial eviction. He submits that the finding recorded by the lower Appellate Court is pure finding of fact. No question of law is involved in this appeal. 5. I heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The finding recorded by both the lower Courts even on the point of partial eviction is pure finding of fact. Further more, from the map of the house, it appears that there are small Kotharies in the house. There is only one common approach and one bath room and one latrine. In Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam's case (supra) this Court held that the allotment of ground floor to the plaintiff and the first floor to the defendants would be highly inconvenient to both the parties. The defendants staff and persons coming to the defendants office will have to pass through the ground floor invading the privacy of the occupants and disturbing them every time.In S. Nagaraja's case (supra), the Karnataka High Court held as below:- "Partial eviction of tenant should be ordered where premises are capable of separate enjoyment without alteration-Court cannot put financial burden on landlord /landlady to make construction to bifurcate single premises into two." In case a decree only for partial eviction is passed, it will create nuisance and inconvenience to the plaintiff-respondent who is an old Vaishnav Lady. Further more, according to the statement of the defendant-appellant there are 32 members in his family. Under such circumstances, also in case the premises are divided, it would not be possible to satisfy the needs of both the parties. In my opinion the learned Additional District Judge has given cogent reasons in refusing the prayer of the appellant for partial eviction. Under such circumstances, also in case the premises are divided, it would not be possible to satisfy the needs of both the parties. In my opinion the learned Additional District Judge has given cogent reasons in refusing the prayer of the appellant for partial eviction. Under such circumstances, it can not be said that the decree passed by the lower Appellate Court is perverse.No question of law is involved in this appeal and, as such, the same is dismissed.Appeal dismissed..