1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that this was a suit for ejectment of the appellants-tenants on ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity at the suit premises by the plaintiff landlord. He contends that the Courts below did not consider the mandatory provisions of Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 regarding the possibility of partial eviction of the appellant. No other question of law is involved in the case. It has concurrently been found by the Courts below that the demised premises were reasonably and bonafide required by the respondent for the use and occupation of himself and his family members. It has also been found that the comparative hardship to the plaintiff-respondent will be greater than the appellants in case the decree for ejectment is refused. As to the non-giving of any findings regarding the possibility of partial eviction suffice it to state that the demised premises consist of two rooms a kitchen latrine and bathroom. Family of the landlord consists of five members including three studying sons aged 20, 18 and 16 years. How can one possibly imag