JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits at admission stage in this appeal. 2. Suit for eviction was filed before learned trial court on the basis of default, material alteration and bonafide necessity. Both the parties led evidence. Suit was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 1, Udaipur on 1.3.97. An appeal was preferred and the same has been allowed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur on 13.7.98. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court did not frame issues regarding comparative hardship. He also submitted that the issue relating to the partial eviction was also not framed and, therefore, the defendant appellant did not have full opportunity to lead evidence. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord respondent submitted that though the suit was dismissed by the learned civil Judge (J.D.) yet while decreeing the suit the appellate court has considered evidence on these issues as well which was led by the parties. He submitted that there was no need to frame any additional issues when the parties had led evidence on them which have been decided by the appellate court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant cited unreported judgment of this court rendered in SB Civil Second Appeal No. 254/95, Surya Prakash v. Mataji Ka Raj Rejeshwari Mandir, decided on 27.5.1997 wherein following Riyaz Mohammed v. Rameshwar, reported in 1989(1) RLW page 95 this court remitted the case after framing additional issues and directed to record finding and sent within a period of six months. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent citing RLW 1996(3) Raj. page 362, Govind Prasad v. Bangali , submitted that when the plaintiff has no other accommodation and the tenant has not made any effort to seek other accommodation, plaintiff's requirement is bonafide as the landlord is the best Judge of his residential requirement and if the landlord desires to beneficially enjoy his own property when the other property occupied by him as a tenant or on any other basis is either insecure or inconvenient it is not for the courts to dictate him to continue to occupy such premises. In such case where the finding has been given in reversal of the decision of the first court either to property or discussing the reasons by later court on unsatisfactory grounds this court can very well look into the finding of fact and the finding of fact is not binding in such a case in appeal. Reference may be made to AIR 1923 Privy Council 62, Banubai Framji Commissariat and another v. Minilal Jugaldas , and 1955 RLW page 538, Ram Deen v. Sheo Prasad , wherein it has been held that the High Court can review the matter where there was difference of opinion between the two lower courts and do justice in the case. 7. I find from the discussion of evidence under issue No. 2 by the appellate Judge that she considered the question of partial eviction and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff respondent required the property for the purpose he has pleaded in the plaint. When there is a clear cut view of the Rajasthan High Court in Govind Prasad's case (supra) that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and if he desires to beneficially enjoy his own property and the tenant has not made any effort to seek any other accommodation, the plaintiff's requirement is bonafide. The learned Judge also discussed evidence about comparative hardship under the issue and came to the conclusion that the defendant appellant could take any other shop in order to carry on his business. 8. The question of partial eviction has also been discussed by the learned appellate Judge and she has come to the conclusion that the suit property is only 4'x1'x6' having a covered 'chabutra' of 4'x9' in front of it. It was not possible that there may be a partial eviction of his property. When there are clear cut findings to this effect by the lower appellate court, I am of the view that the citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. In the citation the parties had no opportunity of leading evidence and the same was not discussed by the appellate Judge at all. In the citation the parties had no opportunity of leading evidence and the same was not discussed by the appellate Judge at all. Here, as I have discussed above, the parties had led evidence before the learned trial court and the learned appellate Judge after discussing it came to the conclusion that the partial eviction was not possible and the plaintiff was the best judge of his need and that he had a bonafide necessity and that the defendant had not made any effort to search out another shop and that the plaintiff respondent had proved all the points for the purpose of eviction of the rented property. Hence, there is no need to remand the case at all.Consequently, I do not find any force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******