(1.) - Special leave granted.
(2.) The proviso to clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 lays down that where the Court. thinks that the landlord's reasonable requirement of such occupation may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part only and allowing the tenant to continue the occupation of the rest of the premises and the tenant agrees to such occupation, the Court shall pass a decree accordingly and fix proportionately fair rent for the portion in occupation of the tenant. Obviously, this situation is reached when the landlord has proved his requirement to make out a ground for obtaining eviction of the tenant. In the present case, landlord's requirement having been found proved, the Court had to consider the matter further according to this proviso and an order for eviction from the entire premises could be made only if a decree for partial eviction in the manner provided could not substantially satisfy the landlord's requirement. This aspect has been completely overlooked even by the High Court which on the contrary has stated as under:
(3.) It is obvious that the High Court proceeded on the basis that a presumption arises that where the premises comprises only of one room, the proviso to clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 11 of the Act is not attracted since its application is not practicable. Obviously, this assumption is fallacious since it pre-supposes indivisibility of a premises comprised of one room, irrespective of its dimensions and even when the room is big enough to permit division to satisfy the needs of the landlord as well as the tenant. It is a question of fact in each case whether such a partial eviction can be made or not. This enquiry has to be made by the court after reaching the conclusion that the landlord's requirement for occupation of the premises set up by him has been made out. In failing to do so, the courts below overlooked this statutory requirement.