JUDGMENT Sengupta, J. This is an application under Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1) read with Article 134A of the Constitution against the judgment and decree dated August 28, 1991. Passed by a Division Bench of this Court dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated September 18, 1986 of the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court in Ejectment suit instituted in 1978 and allowing the Cross-Objection filed by the respondent. 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the plaintiff respondent instituted the aforesaid suit for ejectment inter alia on the following ground; a) For reasonable requirement of the premises for the landlord's own use and occupation and for use and occupation of the members of his family. b) Subletting, transferring and/or parting with the possession of the portion of the suit premises without the consent of the plaintiff/landlord. c) Using the premises for purposes other than for which it was let out. d) Nuisance and Annoyance 3. The learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court by the judgment and decree dated September 18, 1986 decreed the suit on the ground that the premises in question was required by the plaintiff/landlord for his own use and occupation and that the defendant/tenant had used the premises other than the purpose for which it was let out but rejected the ground of subletting made out by the plaintiff/landlord. 4. An appeal was preferred against the said judgment and decree by the defendant against the decree of ejectment whereas a cross-objection was filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the rejection of the ground of subletting on which decree for ejectment was also claimed. The Appeal Bench agreed with the view of the Court below with regard to the finding that the premises in question was required for landlords own use and occupation and that the tenant used the premises for purposes other than for which it was let out. The Appeal Bench agreed with the view of the Court below with regard to the finding that the premises in question was required for landlords own use and occupation and that the tenant used the premises for purposes other than for which it was let out. The findings made by the Court below on the issue of subletting taken by the plaintiff; respondent for eviction of the defendant/appellant were set aside and the Appeal Bench held that the plaintiff/respondent had been able to prove that the portion of the premises in question was let out and or transferred for valuable consideration by way of rent by the defendant appellant and thus the issue of subletting was held in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent. In other words, the cross-objection filed by the respondent was allowed. 5 At the hearing Mr. Kapoor, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that substantial question of law do arise out of the judgment and decree and therefore leave should be granted. He has pointed out that the Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal, did not take into consideration the subsequent facts relating to the reasonable requirement of the premises by the plaintiff landlord and accordingly mandate of Order 41 C.P.C. was not complied with and the matter ought to have been remanded back to the Court below for fresh determination of the issue arising from the subsequent facts brought on record. He has drawn our attention to several decisions laying down the duty of the Court in dealing with the subsequent facts at the appellate stage. 6. We are afraid, we are unable to accept this contention inasmuch as the Appeal Beach considered this aspect of the matter and held that the subsequent facts had no material bearing on the issue involved in the suit. Even otherwise, this ground cannot in any way effect the decree inasmuch as the concurrent findings of the fact are that the tenant/ appellant used the premises for purposes other than for which it was let out. Even assuming there was some error in the judgment in dealing with the subsequent facts by the Appeal Bench but the ultimate decree is in no way affected by such error. Firstly, the landlord succeeded on the ground of change of user of the premises as well as on the ground of transferring of the tenancy for valuable consideration. Even assuming there was some error in the judgment in dealing with the subsequent facts by the Appeal Bench but the ultimate decree is in no way affected by such error. Firstly, the landlord succeeded on the ground of change of user of the premises as well as on the ground of transferring of the tenancy for valuable consideration. Secondly in our view, this application is not maintainable as rightly contended by the learned Advocate for the respondent. 7. The learned Advocate for the respondent has drawn our attention to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of (1) Reckit and Colman of India v Fifth Industrial Tribunal & Ors., reported in 84 CWN 657 where a Division Beach of this Court held that apart from an oral application contemplated by Article 134A, Clause (b) no written application for a certificate even though Within the period of limitation prescribed by Article 132 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is maintainable. It has also been held that where on application for a certificate is rejected as not being maintainable, it will not be proper for the High Court to consider the grant of a Certificate in the exercise of its suo power under Clause (a) of Article 134A. 8. Our attention has also been drawn to a Full Bench Decision of the Karnataka High Court in (2) Keshava v. Ram Chandra reported in AIR 1981 Karnataka 97. In that case it was held that a party, who has failed to make an oral application immediately after the passing or making of a judgment, decree final order or sentence cannot file a written application for certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court at a subsequent stage. 9. In the premises, it must be held that this application is not maintainable. That apart we do not find any substantial question of law involved in this case which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, this application is dismissed. All interim orders are vacated. 11. There will, however, be no order as to costs. On the prayer of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant the certified copy of the judgment and decree be returned to him upon retaining a xerox copy thereof. Sen, J. : I agree.