JUDGMENT M. Y. Eqbal, J. - This civil revision application is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.2.97 passed by 2nd Munsif, Siwan in Eviction suit no. 12/94 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-opposite parties on the ground of personal necessity. 2. The plaintiffs-opposite parties instituted the aforesaid suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of expiry of period of lease and also on the ground of personal necessity. 3. The case of the plaintiffs inter alia is that the suit premises was let out to the defendant for a period of 11 months and even after expiry of fixed period the defendant has been continuing in possession. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs required the suit premises for carrying on business for himself or for members of their family. The plaintiffs' case is that they have no shop suitable to start the business. The plaintiffs, accordingly requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises but inspite of repeated request the premises was not vacated. 4. The defendant-petitioner appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. Besides other defence the defendant's case is that the suit premises was not let out for a fixed period of 11 months rather the defendant is continuing occupation of the premises as month to month tenant. As regards, personal necessity, the defendant's case is that the plaintiffs have no capital to start business of readymade cloths. It is further stated that the plaintiff no.1 is in service and plaintiff no.2 already carries on business. It is also denied that he was ever requested by the plaintiffs to vacate the premises. 5. The learned court below framed following issues. 1. Is the suit as framed maintainable? 2. Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit? 3. Is the suit barred by the principle of estoppel and acquisience? 4. Was the tenancy with respect to suit premises for a limited period of 11 months? 5. Does the plaintiffs require the suit premises reasonably and in good faith for their personal use and occupation? 6. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree for eviction? 7. What relief or reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled? 6. Issues no. 4, 5 and 6 have been discussed together by the court below who came to a finding that the plaintiffs require the suit premises bonafide and in good faith. 7. 6. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree for eviction? 7. What relief or reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled? 6. Issues no. 4, 5 and 6 have been discussed together by the court below who came to a finding that the plaintiffs require the suit premises bonafide and in good faith. 7. I have gone through the judgment passed by the court below and also perused the pleadings of the parties and deposition, copies of which have been produced by the counsels appearing for the parties. From perusal of the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses, it appears that all the witnesses have consistently supported the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff no.2 is unemployed and he wants to carryon business. On the other hand, from perusal of the evidence of defendant, who was examined as D.W. 1, it appears that defendant made out a case that plaintiff no.2 is employed in some hospital. There is no such pleading of the defendant in the written statement. However this witness in cross-examination, has stated that he has nothing to show that the plaintiff no.2 is in fact employed. 8. On consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the parties, I am of the opinion that the evidence of the plaintiffs can be given more weightage than the evidence of the defendant. I further do not find any strong reason to differ with the finding arrived at by the court below with regard to bona fide and personal necessity of the plaintiffs. 9. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff no.2 subsequently got employment in hospital and that fact was introduced at the relevant stage. Learned counsel further submitted that since it was a subsequent event the defendant was not required to amend the pleading. I do not agree to accept the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. If any material fact subsequently came to the notice of the parties at the stage of the trial of the suit then without amending the pleadings, evidence to that effect should not be accepted. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then submitted that the judgment and the decree of the court below cannot be sustained in law for the reasons that the court below neither framed issue nor given any finding on the question of partial eviction. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then submitted that the judgment and the decree of the court below cannot be sustained in law for the reasons that the court below neither framed issue nor given any finding on the question of partial eviction. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel. It is well settled that proviso to section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 casts a duty upon the court to give finding whether a decree for partial eviction will satisfy the requirement of the plaintiffs irrespective of the fact that there is pleading or not? In the instant case, it is not dear as to how much area is the tenanted premises. From the plaint, it appears that the suit premises is measuring 3 dhurs. The court below is required to go into the question and find out what is the area of the tenanted premises and whether the eviction of the defendant from the part of the suit premises will satisfy the requirement of the plaintiffs. I am, therefore, of the view that the matter is fit to be remanded to the court below for deciding the question of partial eviction. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, this civil revision application is allowed and without disturbing the finding of personal necessity the matter is remitted to the court below with a direction to frame issue on the question of partial eviction and to give finding after giving opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and thereafter dispose of the suit in accordance with law.