S. Shamsul Hasan, J. - This is an appeal by the defendant-tenants in a suit for eviction.

2. After the plaintiffs' successful odyssey the defendants have come to this Court. The lower appellate court decreed the suit on the ground of personal necessity and sub-letting. Both these grounds have been assailed in this Court.

The substantial questions of law framed are as follows :-

(1) Whether the courts below acted illegally in ORDER :ing eviction from the suit premises without considering as to whether the requirements of the plaintiffs could be fulfilled by part eviction of the appellants; and,

(ii) Whether the finding regarding subletting has been recorded in accordance with law.

4. When the matter was heard by me setting singly a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nasirul Haque v. Jitendra Nath Dey (A. I. R. 1984 S. C. 1799: 1984 PLJR 79 (SC) was cited to submit that the court below has failed to record a finding that the substantial need of the plaintiffs-landlord would be satisfied by eviction of the tenants from a portion of the tenanted premises. I felt that this finding could only be given if the defendant-tenant raises sucuha plea in the written stat