JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Second appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree passed by District Judge, No. 1, Bhilwara on 12.7.2001 evicting the appellants from the suit shop by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara. 3. The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction against the appellants as land-lord for evicting the appellants- defendants from the suit shop under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 on two grounds; firstly that the defendants have defaulted In payment of rent after the death of their father Bhanwar Lal since October, 1983 and secondly the respondent-plaintiff requires to occupy and use the suit premises bona-fide for personal necessity. The suit has been decreed only on the basis of bona fide and reasonable requirement of his own use. 4. The suit shop measure 28' x 4' and the shop occupied by the plaintiff which is adjacent to the suit shop measures 28' x 7' 6". Both shops are situated in Sarafa Bazar, Bhilwara both the plaintiff and defendants are engaged in the business of dealing with articles of silver and gold. The need, which was pleaded by the plaintiff, is that he does not have any stair case for reaching the roof of his shop and if stair case is constructed within the shop occupied by him it becomes two small to carry out his business, and that he wants to enlarge the suit shop for the purpose of running business by placing counter thereon. While the shop occupied by the plaintiff is owned by his wife, suit shop is owned by the plaintiff. 5. The defendant has denied the need of the plaintiff to be bona fide and reasonable and has contended that this is only for the purpose of forcing the defendants tenants to enhance the rent. The trial court found the necessity to be bona fide and not for enhancing rent which has been affirmed by the appellate court. 6. About the other part of the case viz. whether the necessity is reasonable, the appellate court has found that most of the business in the Sarafa Bazar where the shop is situated the Sarafa business is run in the shops having the size of 4" x 8" or 5" x 10" or 5" x 15". 6. About the other part of the case viz. whether the necessity is reasonable, the appellate court has found that most of the business in the Sarafa Bazar where the shop is situated the Sarafa business is run in the shops having the size of 4" x 8" or 5" x 10" or 5" x 15". This clearly established that the shop occupied by the plaintiff is wider than any of the shops in the market in which the like business is run in the market. Therefore, merely for that purpose the need could not be found reasonable for carrying on the business efficiently. 7. The appellate court found the need of the plaintiff to be reasonable also on the ground that even if 3 feet wide stair is laid, it will leave very small width of 4'. 6" feet alone, in which the business cannot be carried out reasonably because not enough room is left to put a counter. On the other hand, if the suit shop which is only 4 feet wide is vacated and made available, after laying stair of 3 feet widened, which on being joined with the existing shop of plaintiff can be writhed by more than a feet and the business of selling ornaments can be carried effectively by laying counter. 8. The appellant has urged before the lower appellate court that even if need is found to be bona fide and reasonable, for fulfilling the need of the land lord partial eviction ought to have been made by the trial court by evaluating the comparative hardship, and whether need of the plaintiff can be fulfilled by partial eviction. The appellate court has declined to consider this question by holding that since the suit shop from which eviction is sought, is not so large so as to call for an enquiry into the question for partial eviction. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that the two courts below have erred in not considering the question of bona fide and reasonable necessity separately and reach a substantive findings on the aspect of the bona fide and reasonable findings. The findings are vitiated in law. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that the two courts below have erred in not considering the question of bona fide and reasonable necessity separately and reach a substantive findings on the aspect of the bona fide and reasonable findings. The findings are vitiated in law. He has also urged alternatively that even if the plaintiff has proved his requirement to be bona fide and reasonable, still it was essential for the courts below in the present facts and circumstances, to consider that if for the purpose of reaching the roof that need could be fulfilled by providing the stair case, at the back of the shop, for which only some of the back portion of the shop which is quite deep in length could have satisfied the need, and that would leave the plaintiffs opening of shop unaffected which is wider than most of the shops in the market where like business in ordinarily carried on, and that would also not deprive the defendants from their place of business altogether. He has urged the lower appellate courts have not carried their investigation further in this light, vitiating the ultimate result of the suit. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondent has urged that since all the findings recorded by the court below are findings of fact, and no question of law arises in appeal and the appeal be dismissed at this stage. 11. So far as findings recorded by the trial court about the bona fide and reasonable necessity of the plaintiff for setting up a stair case in the suit shop to reach roof of his shop for his enjoyment is concerned, it is a finding of fact and cannot be examined by the appreciating evidence in this second appeals. 12. However, it is to be noticed that need for fulfilling of which the requirement of the plaintiff has been accepted by the appellate court, is to set up a stair case to reach the roof, and setting up of stairs within the shop in which the plaintiff is carrying on business shall be reduced in width to 4 feet only and for that reason the lower courts have refused to consider the question of comparative hardships and whether need established could be filled by partial eviction. In this connection the courts below have assumed that stairs had to be laid from the front. In this connection the courts below have assumed that stairs had to be laid from the front. In coming to this conclusion the courts below appear to have ignored the very relevant finding reached by it and pleadings. The suit shop is not in possession of plaintiff, plaintiff has not sought eviction from that premises to be occupied for his business, he has made out a need to raise a stair in the shop owned by him and not in the shop owned by is wife and occupied by him. Therefore considering the shorting of width of his shop in his occupation. 13. It is found by courts below that the plaintiffs shop is larger both in width and depth than the other shops situated in the market where similar business is carried usually. It is apparent that apart from a vague assertion no specific requirement of raising construction over the roof has been made. Nor any specific site for keeping stairs has also been mentioned. Merely for the purpose of reaching the roof it cannot be said that the stair case is necessarily required to be provided from the front of the shop at its entry point, if it is otherwise possible to be so provided. Requirement of stair case for reaching roof of shop can be equally met by laying stairs from the back of the shop, which may either go up simply did not arise, vertically from the end of its depth towards it's exist or may be by including a reasonable part of the back of the defendant shop for going up to the roof, by a circular or a shaped stairs. The comparative hardship too it could be considered on facts found by it viz. if defendants are evicted, they are immediately deprived of the place of doing business in the market place, where they have been doing business for considerable time and if the necessary place is not made available to the plaintiff for reaching roof top of his shop, he is deprived of legitimate use and enjoyment of his property. On balancing the two question of partial eviction too is regarded to be considered in above prospective particularly when it is clear that provision of stay can be made only by joining the two shops. 14. On balancing the two question of partial eviction too is regarded to be considered in above prospective particularly when it is clear that provision of stay can be made only by joining the two shops. 14. Therefore, in my opinion the conclusion of the lower appellate court that it was not necessary to consider a question of comparative hardship and partial eviction in the present case, cannot be sustained on its own findings. The question that in my opinion entails an enquiry is whether the stair case is possible to be provided for reaching the roof from the back of the shop so that roof can be reached without affecting frontage of the shop and if it is possible to provide such stair case at the back of the shop how much part of the shop in possession of the defendant would be needed for the purpose of providing the stair case. 15. As a result following additional issue to that effect is framed and matter is remitted back to the lower appellate Court for its decision after providing an opportunity to both the parties for leading evidence and submit its findings within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties before the lower appellate court which is fixed as 8th October, 2001. Whether need of the plaintiff which has been established, can be satisfied by partial eviction of the defendant from the suit shop, "if so how much suit shop is to be vacated by the defendants. 16. Meanwhile the decree under appeal shall not be executed till further orders.Second appeal allowed. *******