S. K. MOOKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) - The Present appeal, directed against an order of remand passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 5th Court, Alipore on 5-9-1979 in Title Appeal No 1001 of 1978, raises a short but interesting question of law The tenant defendant is the appellant in the present appeal. ( 2 ) THE landlord-plaintiff, who is the respondent here, instituted a suit for eviction, inter alia on the ground of default and reasonable requirement for use and occupation. The ground of default ultimately became ineffective in view of provisions of Section 17 (4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, As far as the case of reasonable requirement as concerned the plaintiff pleaded that as her husband's retirement was imminent, the quarter provided by his employer was to be vacated. Her children. had to carry on their studies by residing in the premises of her relations. In evidence it transpired that retirement of the plaintiff's husband had occurred, two daughters got married and the son got admitted in the Bachelor of Science Course of the Benaras University. The ground of reasonable requirement also proved abortive as the trial court dismissed the suit, upon ending that the alleged letter of the employer (Ex.-7)' and the reply thereto (Ex.-6) bad not been-properly protect nor in the Plaint was there any averment to the infect that the plaintiff had no mutable accommodation other than the suit premises. An appeal berg taken on behalf of the plaintiff the lower appellate court by the impugned order of remand sent the suit back to the Trial Court with a direct on for framing an additional issue regarding the availability of other reasonably suitable accommodation to the plaintiff after giving the parties opportunities to amend their respective plead in and to adduce evidence on that point. The Lower Appellate Court, however, did not investigate or adjudicate the property of the other findings of the Trial Court. ( 3 ) THERE is no appeal by the plaintiff but the present appeal, as stated hereinabove, is at the instance of the defendant. ( 4 ) APPEARING in support of the appeal, Mr. The Lower Appellate Court, however, did not investigate or adjudicate the property of the other findings of the Trial Court. ( 3 ) THERE is no appeal by the plaintiff but the present appeal, as stated hereinabove, is at the instance of the defendant. ( 4 ) APPEARING in support of the appeal, Mr. Ranjit Kumar Banerjee has strongly contended that since, the finding of the Trial Court that the necessary averment in the plaint of the plaintiff having no other reasonably suitable accommodation is absent and the pliant is defective to that extent has become final, the Lower Appellate Court, should have, dismissed the suit in view of that position without remanding the same for affording an opportunity to the plaintiff to remove the lacunae through amendment. According to Mr. Banerjee, remand for such a purpose is unwarranted in law and the Appeal Court should be directed to rehear the appeal and dispose of the same on the existing materials. On behalf of the respondent, however, Mr. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee has justified the order the ideas of remand, as according to him, the evidence already on record clearly establishes that the parties went to trial with full consciousness about the nature of the dispute including the effect of existence or non-existence of other reasonably suitable accommodation of the plaintiff-landlord and non-framing of any issue due to absence, of a specific averment in the plaint, cannot lead to the dismissal of the suit. The Appellate Court in such circumstance was justified in reminding the suit on the terms as embodied in the impugned appellate order. ( 5 ) UPON a careful consideration of the aforesaid submissions, the scope of the depute in the present appeal becomes very much restricted. The only point which this court is invited to consider is to find out whether the Appeal court could have disposed of the suit on the existing materials. Necessarily in such circumstance, I bad to delve into the records of the case and on perusal thereof I feel that, prima facie, there are ample materials to enable the court of appeal below to dispose of the appeal in entirely on merit, upon consideration of the propriety and correctness of all the findings of the Trial Court. Necessarily in such circumstance, I bad to delve into the records of the case and on perusal thereof I feel that, prima facie, there are ample materials to enable the court of appeal below to dispose of the appeal in entirely on merit, upon consideration of the propriety and correctness of all the findings of the Trial Court. The statements of witnesses unmistakably suggest that notwithstanding the absence of specific pleadings and issues, the parties went to trial with full consciousness about their respective cases and under such circumstances Court is empowered to look to the evidence already on record It is ruminant to mention at this stage that the case of B. Banerjee vs. Anita Pan, reported in A. I. R 1975 1146, has not laid down that the plaint must contain a specific averment about absence of other reasonab1y suitable accommodation of the landlord but lays down the mode of averting the mischief arising out of retrospective operation of sub-section (3a) of Section 13 of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and the distinctive facts of the present case make the same wholly inapplicable to it. The Appeal Court appears to have misappreciated the said principals and without application of its mind to the materials on records remanded the suit ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of remand. The Court below is directed to rehear the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made by me hereinabove. I make it clear that I have not catered into the merits of respective cases of the contesting parties involved in the suit and the Court below would be free to decide the same in exercise of its powers under Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 7 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. 7a. No formal decree need be drawn up. ( 8 ) LET the records be sent down to the Court below forthwith. ( 7 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. 7a. No formal decree need be drawn up. ( 8 ) LET the records be sent down to the Court below forthwith. ( 9 ) AFTER I had written out my judgment for being delivered today, I received the last issue of AIR 1988 (S. C.) wherein at page 396 I found that the Supreme Court in a case of more or less similar facts has laid down the very same procedure, holding that in such cases, the order of remand is not called for. Application allowed.