JUDGMENT 1. - Late Nasiruddin filed a civil suit, for eviction, against the defendant appellants, for the house, which was taken on rent by the father of the appellants. During the pendency of the said suit, Nasiruddin died, and his legal representatives, who are the present respondents, were brought on record. The eviction was claimed on the ground of personal & bona fide necessity of the suit-premises, denial of title & default in the payment of rent. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court found that there was no default in the payment of rent on the part of the tenant-appellants. But, it held that the plaintiffs required the suit-premises, for their personal, bona fide & reasonable necessity. It was also held that the defendants have denied the title of the plaintiffs. By the judgment & decree dated 25.3.1995, the learned trial Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit for eviction, against the defendant-appellants. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate Court, which, vide its judgment & decree dated 3.11.1997, has dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment & decree, passed by the learned trial Court. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this second appeal has been preferred. 2. 1 have heard the arguments of both the sides. 3. The second appeal was admitted on 28.1.1998, and the substantial question of law, involved in the matter, was framed as under : "Whether a decree for eviction can be passed without considering the partial eviction of the rented premises ?" 4. The concurrent finding of both the Courts below, regarding the bona fide requirement of the suit-premises by the plaintiff-respondents, does not call for any interference, because, the finding of facts, recorded by the two Courts below, is based on the appreciation of evidence, and there is no perversity or illegality therein. 5. On the question of comparative hardship also, there is the concurrent finding of both the Courts below. Their finding is based on the appreciation of evidence & material on record. Their decisions do not seem to be influenced by any irrelevant matter. The weight of preponderating circumstances and evidence has not been ignored by them. No interference is, therefore, called for in this behalf, as there does not seem to be any perversitya or illegality in the finding. 6. Their decisions do not seem to be influenced by any irrelevant matter. The weight of preponderating circumstances and evidence has not been ignored by them. No interference is, therefore, called for in this behalf, as there does not seem to be any perversitya or illegality in the finding. 6. It is well-settled in law that once the personal & bona fide requirement of need is satisfied, the Court has to further consider under Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises ('Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, whether the need or requirement would be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part of the premises only. In the case of Krishan Murari Prasad v. Mitar Singh 1993 Supp (1) SCC 439 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that even if the premises comprise of only one room, its divisibility has to be considered. It is a question of fact in each case, whether such partial eviction can be made or not. This inquiry has to he made by the Court, after reaching the conclusion that the landlord's requirement for occupation of the premises, set by him, has been made out", observed Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Thus, a decree for eviction cannot be passed, without considering the partial eviction of the rented premises. The Court has to consider the question of partial eviction before passing a decree of eviction. 7. In the present case in hand, although, no issue has been framed on the point of partial eviction. But, both the parties have led their evidence in this regard, and both the Courts below have given their findings against the partial eviction. If the parties have led their evidence on the question of partial eviction, then, the non-framing of issue would be immaterial. Both the Courts below, on the basis of the evidence, produced by both the sides, have considered the question of partial eviction of the suit-premises and have given a concurrent finding that partial eviction of the suit premised would not meet the requirements of the plaintiff-landlords. Both the Courts below have held that partial eviction of the suit-premises, is not possible, nor desirable. Both the Courts below have given the finding against partial eviction, after considering the evidence & material on record, and their finding does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Both the Courts below have held that partial eviction of the suit-premises, is not possible, nor desirable. Both the Courts below have given the finding against partial eviction, after considering the evidence & material on record, and their finding does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. In the case of Prem Tent House v. Prakash Chand Jain 1983 RLR 438 , it has been held by this Court that if there is sufficient evidence & material on record, to decide the question of partial eviction, it is neither necessary to frame an issue, nor to remand the case to lower Court, for decision on the point. From this proposition of law, laid down by this Court, it is evident that the non-framing of issue is immaterial, if there is sufficient evidence & material on record, to decide the question of partial eviction. In the instant case in hand, there is sufficient evidence & material on record, to decide this question, and both the Courts below have indeed considered this question and decided it against the partial eviction. Therefore, it is apparent that both the Courts below have considered & decided the question of partial eviction, and after giving the finding against the partial eviction, the decree of eviction has been passed. 8. There is no illegality or infirmity in the concurrent finding and decisions of the learned Courts below. 9. There is thus no force in this second appeal. Therefore, it is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******