(1.) THIS civil second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Sub Judge (CJM) Jammu dated 3.3.1981 whereby he has upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court (Sub Registrar Munsiff) Jammu dated 30. 9. 1980. The findings of fact arrived at by the courts below are binding on this court in view of the provisions of Section 100 CPC as amended by Act No. XI of 1983, Mr. Sethi appearing for the appellant has. however, accepted this position and has raised certain points of law which in his opinion were, substantial question of law, which could be determined in second appeal,
(2.) MR . Sethi has formulated substantial questions of law and has attacked the judgment of courts below on the following points : -
(3.) IN support of the 1st contention, Mr. Sethi has relied on the proviso of Sec 11 (1) (h) of Houses and Shops Rent Control Act. which mandates a court to determine, as to whether if the need of the landlord can be satisfied by partially evicting a tenant from the premises if the tenant agrees to occupy a smaller portion of the premises. This question is to be determined in case suit is based only on the ground of reasonable requirement of landlord for occupation of the property. It is true that two courts below have not either framed this issue or returned any finding on the question of partial eviction, but, in my opinion that will have no effect on the judgments and decrees of the courts below.