JUDGMENT 1. - Instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.1992 passed by learned District Judge, Udaipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff respondent filed suit for eviction and arrears of rent before the learned trial Court. It was averred in the plaint that plaintiff's house situated on Plot No. 95 in Mohalla Saraswati Marg, Udaipur City, was taken on rent by the appellant-defendant No. 1 for appellant-defendant No. 2 on a monthly rent of Rs. 854/- excluding the electricity and water charges for a period of three years and a lease deed was executed to this effect. It was also averred in the plaint that although there is an ancestral house situated in Sarafa Bazar but the same is not sufficient to accommodate his entire family, therefore, the eviction was sought for on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide necessity as envisaged u/Cl. (h) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 17 of 195Q). 3. After service of notice written statement was filed by defendant-appellants stating therein that the suit premises was taken on rent oD 1.4.1977 but there was no stipulation that premises will be vacated after three years. It was further averred that the plaintiff respondent has a double storied building which is sufficient to accommodate his family and therefore he is not in the reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit premises. It was also averred that the plaintiff merely wants to enhance the rent. 4. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties necessary issues were framed and parties were allowed to adduce evidence by the learned trial Court. 5. The learned trial Court decided all the issues in favour of plaintiff-respondent and decreed the suit by passing the decree under appeal. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree the defendant-appellants have preferred this appeal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. Main thrust of argument of learned Addl. Govt. Advocate is that the learned trial Court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction without recording a finding on question of partial eviction. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. Main thrust of argument of learned Addl. Govt. Advocate is that the learned trial Court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction without recording a finding on question of partial eviction. In support of his contention he placed reliance on a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Riyaz Mohammed v. Rameshwar, reported in RLW 1989 (1) 95 . 9. Learned counsel Mr. Usman Gani assisted by Mr. Tribuvan Gupta, holding brief of learned counsel for the respondent Mr. R.P. Dave refuted the aforesaid contention. It is urged by Mr. Gani that neither a plea about partial eviction was raised by the defendant-appellants in their written statement nor any issue was framed therefore there was no occasion for the learned trial Court to record a finding about partial eviction. According to Mr. Gani the question about partial eviction cannot be allowed to be raised in the present appeal before this Court. 10. It is well to remember that no decree for eviction on the ground set forth in Cl. (h) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 13 of Act No. 17 of 1950 can be passed unless the Court is satisfied that having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case including the question whether other reasonable accommodation is available to the land lord or the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. 11. There is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the defendant appellants. I am of the view that in the present case the learned trial Court has no legal justification to pass the decree under appeal before addressing itself on question of partial eviction even if no such plea was raised in written statement and no issue was framed. The present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Riyaz Mohammad (supra). 12. In my considered opinion the question of partial eviction can be raised in first appeal and second appeal even if no such plea was raised in Court below or Courts below as the case may be. 13. 12. In my considered opinion the question of partial eviction can be raised in first appeal and second appeal even if no such plea was raised in Court below or Courts below as the case may be. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion I consider it just and proper to remit the following additional issue to the learned trial Court and I would like to obtain a finding from learned trial Court so that this appeal may be decided effectively for all times to come in accordance with law. "WHETHER the reasonable requirement of the plaintiff would be substantially satisfied by evicting the defendant from a part of the premises only as contemplated under sub-sec. (2) of Section 14 of Act No. 17 of 1950." 14. This issue is remitted to the learned District Judge, Udaipur for recording his finding after affording opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims.The finding may be sent to this Court preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of record.Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Udaipur on 12.8.1997.Office is directed to remit the record of learned trial Court forthwith. *******