Honble SHARMA, J.–Prior to the Amendment Ordinance No. 26 of 1975, the Rajasthan Rent Act did not contemplate for splitting up of the premises for the purposes of passing a decree for partial eviction but now the second part of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 14 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act), 1950 (for short the Act) contemplates decree for eviction from the part of the premises. (2). In this second appeal following substantial questions of law relating partial eviction of the premises arise:– (i) Whether the appellate Court was erroneous in law in affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court without considering the feasibility and practicability of partition of the tenement in possession of the appellant? (ii) What ther the appellants argument that a part of the tenement could serve the need of the respondent and that the decree of the trial Court was erroneous in not having done so? (iii) Whether the appellate court could refuse to decide the question of partial eviction raised by the appellant in the lower appellate Court on the ground that the said plea had not been taken in the written statement ? (iv) Whether u/s. 14(2) of the Act, the reasonableness of the need of the land lord could not be decided without considering the question of partial eviction ? and (v) Whether the Courts below could take into consideration the purchase of a shop by the appellant situated in Sabji Mandi and consider it to be sufficient for the purposes of defendant appellant without finding that it could not be utilised for residential purposes ? (3). The fact bereft of elaborate details but necessary for this appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent (for short the land- lord) brought a suit seeking eviction of the defendant appellant (for short the tenant) from the house situated in Sarafa Bazar Bharatpur. The landlord claimed eviction on the ground of his bona fide need which was stated to be the need of his son Kanhaiya Lal. This need of the landlord was found proved by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. Hence this second appeal. (4). The proviso to sub-sec. The landlord claimed eviction on the ground of his bona fide need which was stated to be the need of his son Kanhaiya Lal. This need of the landlord was found proved by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. Hence this second appeal. (4). The proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 14 of the Act lays down that where the Court is satisfied that no hardship would be caused either to the tenant or to the landlord by passing the decree in respect of the premises the Court shall pass the decree in respect of such part only. In the case on hand, land lords requirement having been found proved, the court had to scan the matter further in accordance to the proviso and an jorder for eviction from the entire premises could be made only if a decree for partial eviction in the manner provided could not substantially satisfy the land-lords requirement. (5). Indisputably no plea with regard to partial eviction was taken in the written statement and the point was raised for the first time in this second appeal. But it does not make any difference. In Rahaman vs. Ram Chand (1) it was indicated that even though no special plea in respect of partial eviction had been raised and no evidence had been adduced in that regard, the aspect required judicial explanation as the proviso to the explanation to Sec. 11(1)(h) of the J.&K. Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 mandates the Court to consider whether parties evic- tion should be ordered or the entire holding should be directed to be evicted. (6). Riyaz Mohd. vs. Rameshwar (2) was the case whether this Court (Honble S.C. Agrawal, J. as he then was) propounded thus:- ``Merely because the appellant did not raise the question of partial eviction in the written statement and no issue has been framed in that regard and no evidence has been adduced by the parties, would not preclude the appellant from raising that question before this Court in as much as it is imcumbent upon the Court to consider the said question in view of the second paragraph of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 14 of the Act. (7). (2) of Sec. 14 of the Act. (7). I, therefore, unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that it is just and proper to frame the following additional issue:– ``Whether the reasonable requirement of the plaintiff and land lord would be substantially satisfied by evicting the defendant from a part of the premises as contemplated in second paragraph of sub-sec. (2) of Sec.14 of the Act. (8). In the result, the appeal is allowed and the case is remitted to the Court of learned Additional District Judge No.1 Bharatpur to decide the aforesaid issue after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce the evidence. The judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Court ordering eviction of entire premises, stands set aside to this extent. The learned first appellate Court is expected to adjudicate upon the aforesaid issue within six months from the date of receipt of this order. The operation of judgment and decree of the trial Court shall remain stayed till the matter is decided by the appellate Court. Record of the case be remitted back forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the appellate Court on 3.7.1997. Costs easy.