1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent has moved an application to decide the appeal in view of the fact that possession of adjacent shop has been taken by the landlord-respondent from tenant on 25.01.2011 and possession of disputed shop had already been taken by the landlord-respondent on 07.11.2008 in pursuance of execution of decree passed in his favour by the courts below.

3. It is further submitted that although substantial questions of law were formulated in the present appeal, but none of them can be said to be substantial question of law in the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, in view of subsequent developments taken in the matter, the application may be allowed and the appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed.

4. No reply to the application has been filed by the appellant.During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant fairly admitted that possession of rented premise, which is subject matter of this appeal has already been taken by the plaintiff-respondent way back on 07.11.2008 in pursuance of execution of decree passed in favour of the respondent.He also admits that connected S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 124/1995, which was tagged with this appeal, has been disposed off today in his presence on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties and according to term of compromise, possession of rented premise, which was subject matter of Second Appeal No. 124/1995, has been handed over to landlord Murali Lal.

5. After considering submissions of parties, the application filed by the respondent is allowed to the extent that the case may be heard finally.

6. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and the appeal is being disposed off finally.

7. This Court, while admitting this second appeal way back on 26.11.1990, formulated following substantial questions of law:

"1.Whether Commercial premises can be got vacated by the landlord from the tenant on his alleged reasonable and bonafide need for the residential purposes?

2. Whether under Section 13(1) (h) the landlord is entitled to seek eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity for the purpose other than which the premises were let out?

3. Whether requirement of the Commercial and business shop measuring 7' x 13' can be held to be reasonable requirement for the residential purpose?

4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case when the plaintiff has come out with the case that he would use the disputed shop alongwith other two shops for his residential purpose after demolishing and remodelling the whole premise and whether the other two shops are in occupation of other tenants and not available with the plaintiff, can the present need be held reasonable and bonafide?

5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present need of the plaintiff can at all be said to be reasonable and bonafide?

6. Whether finding of the courts below on issue No. 1 is perverse?

7. Whether the courts below have seriously erred in granting a decree for eviction when his case in the facts and circumstances of the present case does not fall under Section 13(1)(h) or on any other ground?

8. Whether the Courts below have considered the question of greater hardship by taking all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration including comparative financial position and defendant's goodwill in the disputed premises?

9. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case when the commercial and business shop is sought to be vacated for residential purposes, can it be said that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff?

10. Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below is liable to set aside for non-consideration of mandatory provision relating to partial eviction?

11. Whether the courts below were bound to examine the question of partial eviction irrespective of whether the same has been raised by the