The legal principle established is that the requirement for eviction must be substantially satisfied, and the court must objectively consider the plaintiff's necessity for the entire premises in the context of personal necessity for eviction.

V. Nath, J.-Heard Mr. S.S. Dwivedi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Mr. M.N. Prabat, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This appeal arises out of a suit for eviction which has been decreed by the appellate court in part reversing the judgment of the trial court whereby the suit was dismissed. The appellate court, after holding the requirement of the plaintiff to be bona fide and reasonable, however allowed only the part eviction of the defendant from the suit premises after considering the issue of partial eviction.

3. A cross-objection has also filed on behalf of the respondent challenging the finding on the issue of personal necessity as recorded by the appellate court below and by order dated 24.2.2009 the said cross-objection had also been ordered to be listed alongwith this appeal. Accordingly, both the second appeal and cross-objection has been heard on merits. The parties to this appeal hereinafter be referred to by their position in the suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is that on the ground floor of his house, there are two rooms, one in northern side and the other on adjacent southern side. The room in the adjacent southern side has been let out to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. It has been stated in the plaint that the son of the plaintiff is unemployed and has taken the agency of Vaishali Transport for which purpose the entire ground floor consisting of the two rooms including the suit premises is required. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant, in spite of the request to vacate in view of the personal necessity of the plaintiff, is not vacating the suit premises.

5. The defendant admitted the relationship but has contested the claim of the plaintiff on several grounds including the assertion that the sons of the plaintiff are minors and not fit to carry on business. It has also been denied that any of the sons of the plaintiffs had taken the agency of Vaishali Transport. It is the case of the defendant that the entire story of personal necessity has been concocted and fabricated by the plaintiff only for the purpose of ensuring the eviction of the defendant and as such the personal necessity as pleaded by the plaintiff is not bona fide and reasonable.

6. The trial court, after considering the evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing his case of personal necessity. In appeal by the plaintiff, however, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff had got personal necessity for the suit premises and he was entitled to a decree of eviction of the defendant. Thereafter the defendant filed C.R. No. 2155/94 before this Court against the aforesaid judgment and decree. After hearing the parties, this Court allowed the revision application and remitted the appeal to the appellate court below for fresh consideration on the issue of personal necessity in view of the subsequent events as pointed out by the defendant and also on the issue of partial eviction. It also appears from the order passed in the civil revision application by this Court, a relevant portion which has been quoted in the impugned judgment, that besides the aforesaid two issues for which the remand order had been passed, no other point was raised by the counsel for the petitioner.

7. The appellate court, in view of the remand order of this Court, recorded the evidence of both sides and thereafter heard the parties. The appellate court, after considering the evidence of the parties including the evidence of the defendant regarding the subsequent events, has come to the finding that the plaintiff has got bona fide and reasonable personal requirement of the suit premises for the purpose of establishing his son in the business of Transport Agency. However, after considering the issue of partial eviction, the appellate court ha