JUDGMENT 1. - The suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 6.11.1979. Though, plea of reasonable bonafide necessity was accepted by the trial court, however, suit was dismissed on the ground of comparative hardship. Above judgment and decree dated 6.11.1979 passed by the trial court was,however, set aside and reversed by the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 22.10.1992. Apart from bonafide reasonable necessity the suit has been decreed on the ground of comparative hardship as well. This court, while admitting the present appeal, framed following substantial questions of law on 16.12.1992:- 1. Whether in view of the properties bearing No. AMC/XIX/524, property No. AMC/XIX/519 and property AMC/XIX/316 having come into possession of the plaintiff during the pendency of litigation the alleged need of plaintiff has come to an end? 2. Whether the First Appellate Court was required to examine the hardship occasioned by the death of the sole defendant leaving behind young widow and all minor sons and daughters? 3. Whether under Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act duty was cast on the appellate court to examine and judicially explore as to whether partial eviction of the premises would satisfy the need of the plaintiff and non-consideration of the same has been vitiated the entire judgment and decree? 4. Whether the First Appellate Court has committed serious error of law in deciding the question of comparative hardship against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff despite the finding of the trial court dated 27.2.1984 given on the remitted issue? 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of " Rehman Jeo Wangnoo v. Ram Chand" ( AIR 1978 SC 413 ) as also this court in the case of " Riaz Mohammad v. Rameshwar" (RLW 1989 (1) page 95), has contended that both the courts below have failed to consider the issue of partial eviction and the matter requires to be remitted back to the lower appellate court on the issue of partial eviction. 3. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, submitted that in absence of any plea no issue was framed on the question of partial eviction, as such, the issue can be decided by this court on the basis of material available on record as has been held by this court in the case of " Anandi Lal v. Smt Sarju Devi & others" (WLC (Raj) 2000 (4) 547). 4. After having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the judgments cited at the Bar. 5. The dispute is in regard to one shop measurement of which and site plan have not been placed on record. The trial court, though, holding bonafide and reasonable necessity in favour of the plaintiff respondent had dismissed the suit on the ground of comparative hardship. On remit of the matter by the lower appellate court the trial court observed that in view of subsequent events comparative hardship in favour of the land lord has been reduced. The Supreme Court in the case of Rahman Jeo Wangnoo (supra) has observed that even in absence of specific plea or evidence on record the trial court ought to have considered whether partial eviction as contemplated under the Act should be ordered or entire holding should be directed to be evicted. The issue can only be decided after giving opportunity to both the sides by leading evidence in this behalf. 6. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court, referred to above, this court, in the case of Riaz Mohammad (supra), while framing the issue of partial eviction, remitted the matter to the lower appellate court for recording the finding on the issue after evidence of both the parties. Though, in case of Anandi Lal (supra) this court had observed that if the issue of partial eviction could be decided by this court on the basis of material available on record, the same is not required to be remitted to the court below for fresh evidence, however, in the present case, as already referred to above, in absence of any details in regard to suit property the issue of partial eviction cannot be decided by this court. Thus, in the light of the judgments referred above, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I consider it just and proper to frame following additional issue and obtain finding of the lower appellate court on the same so that present appeal may be decided on the basis of said finding:- "Whether the reasonable requirement of the plaintiff would be substantially satisfied by evicting the defendant from a part only of the premises as contemplated in second paragraph of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950?" 7. The other substantial questions of law shall be decided after receiving the findings of the lower appellate court on the issue framed above. 8. Accordingly, the case is remitted to the court of the Additional District Judge No.1, Ajmer for recording the finding on the above issue after affording an opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence. The finding may be sent to this court within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the record. The parties are directed to appear before the above court on 13.10.2008 to take a date for further proceedings. The record may be sent back immediately. Put up for hearing soon after the report and record is received back.Case Remanded and Ordered to Be Put Up After Report and Record is Received Back. *******