Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the defendant /tenant against a judgment of affirmation. Original respondent/plaintiff Karunamay Chatterjee filed eviction suit being Title Suit No.56 of 1976 against defendant/tenant Sk. Meser Ali alias Sk. Macher Ali for his eviction from a ground floor shop room on the ground of default as well as reasonable requirement for being used by his unemployed second son for running a grocery shop.
(2.) ORIGINAL defendant contested said suit denying all material allegations and contending inter alia that plaintiff did not reasonably require suit premises as alleged. Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground of reasonable requirement by judgment dated 25th of August, 1978. Defendant /tenant preferred an appeal which was dismissed on contest on 14th of February, 1979. Defendant /tenant preferred second appeal being Second Appeal No.1096 of 1979. The appeal was allowed and the suit was remanded back to learned Trial Court for allowing the parties to make amendments in pleadings for inclusion of subsequent events, if any, and also for adducing further evidence, if any, and then to dispose of the suit on the basis of evidence already on record and further evidence, if any. Said second appeal was disposed of by order dated 16th of March, 1989. After said remand there was amendment of pleadings and further evidence. Learned Trial Court again, after contested hearing, decreed the suit for eviction on the same ground of reasonable requirement. It was affirmed by the impugned judgment dated 8th of April, 1992 by learned Lower Appellate Court. Hence is this Second Appeal.
(3.) AT the time of admission no substantial question of law was framed. However, at the time of hearing of the second appeal the following substantial question of law was framed. "Whether learned Courts below substantially erred in law by decreeing the suit on the ground of reasonable requirement when there was no evidence of genuine need and / or requirement of the suit premises for being used by second son of the original plai]ntiff." On 28th of July, 2011 appellants being substituted legal heirs of deceased original appellant /defendant filed an application for taking note of subsequent events and for treating the same as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Respondents being substituted legal heirs of original landlord filed an affidavit for opposition against said petition under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In reply, appellants filed affidavit in reply.;