PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE present writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.2.2009 passed by the Appellate Court in Appeal No. 164 of 2006 whereby and where under it has rejected the application filed by the petitioner to bring two docu­ments namely certified copy of release order dated 20.7.2008 and few pho­tographs of the shop to show that need of the landlord stands satisfied, has been rejected. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the said certified copy of the order came into existence during the pendency of the ap­peal. He submits that Appellate Court can taken into account the subsequent events. The further submission is that if the said plea of the tenant finds favour with the Appellate Court, the controversy involved with regard to the bona fide need of the respondent-landlord would be set at rest. He further sub­mits that if these two documents are taken on record, no other evidence, oral or documentary would be required to be adduced.
(3.) CONSIDERED the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties.;