JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J. :—After hearing counsel for the parties we are clearly of the view that, the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained for two reasons. Firstly, the High Court had earlier remanded the case to the trial court and called for a finding from the trial court on the question of partial eviction. The trial court while recording its finding was of the view that the question of partial eviction should be considered in the light of the requirement of the landlord as. deposed to by him. In doing so, the High Court failed to take into account the proviso to Section 12(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act of 1977, which in terms enjoins that what is necessary to be considered is the reasonable requirement of the landlord and whether it would be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part only of the premises. The Court has therefore, in the first instance, to determine the extent of the premises which the landlord "reasonably" requires. Determine it objectively and not on the basis of his ipse dixit or his mere desire to occupy as much as he wants. But the Court has to furthermore apply a test as to whether such requiremen