The court emphasized that the requirement of personal necessity for eviction must be fully considered and established, and that there should be no substantial question of law involved in the case.

This second appeal is listed for bearing under ORDER :41 Rule II of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against eviction of the tenant-appellant under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff-landladies, a concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below. Plaintiff land lady instituted an earlier suit for eviction being' no. 46/117 of 1972-/76 as well, on the ground of personal necessity, and even though personal necessity was established, the plaintiff lost the suit on the technical ground of absence of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, presumably prior to the JUDGMENT : of the Supreme Court in V. Dhanpal Chattiar v. Yesodai Ammel reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1745.

2. Mr. Tarakant Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the tenant appellant contended that the substantial question of law involved in the appeal is that none of the courts below has recorded a finding, which is mandatory, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rahman Jeo Wangnoo v. Ramchand reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 413, whether partial eviction would have satisfied the necessity of the landlord from the disputed premises. He submits that the case is, therefore fit to be remanded back to the court below for recording the said finding and further giving opportunities to the parties to lead evidence on this question and thereafter to dispose of the case in accordance with law. The respondent land ladies have filed caveat and entered appearance through their learned counsel Mr. Prem Lal.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondent relies upon paragraph II of the appellate court JUDGMENT : and contends that the family consists of plaintiff no. 2, and her husband, with three sons and I daughter, plaintiff no.1 and her husband, another son of plaintiff no.1 with six children. He has also relied on paragraph 6 of the trial court JUDGMENT : where the trial court has recorded a finding.

"Thus it is web established that the plaintiff have a large family naturally they require greater space for their residence."

4. Mr. Prem Lal has further drawn my attention to the evidence of D.W.3 who has admitted in examination in chief that the disputed house consists of two small rooms on the first floor and two rooms in the ground floor, altogether four rooms only.,

5. Mr. Prem Lal contends that the personal necessity of the family comprise of their own residence as well as shop-keeping as found by the courts below, the family being "grounds family. Learned Counsel further submits that even though the courts below have not in so many words recorded a finding that the requirement of the land ladies could be fulfilled by partial eviction from the disputed 4 roomed house, but the courts below were fully aware and alive about the largeness of the family for their residence as well as some space for a "Grocery shop". Learned Counsel contends that the facts speak for itself, and it, would really be defeating the cause of justice by prolongation of the litigation any further. Had the courts below be not aware of this aspect there were no need for them to consider the largeness of the family.

6. Mr. Prem Lal contends that the decision of Rahman Jeo'. case (Supra) cannot be mechanically applied irrespective of the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

7. In the said case before the Supreme Court, there was no evidence in this regard available on the record, on the contrary, the evidence was shut because of absence of any pleading. It was in these circumstances the Supreme Court held, that parties be allowed to lead evidence and the courts to record a finding thereafter. The learned counsel apart from relying on the materials aforesaid, noticed by both the courts below, while decreeing the suit for eviction, drew 'my attention to further un-controverted fact that the tenant appellant has purchased a big house in the name of his sons.

8. Having heard the lear