JUDGMENT 1. - Tenant appellant Thakur Das Khatri in the instant second appeal has assailed the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the two courts below. An application under Order 41 rule 27 C.P.C. has also been filed by the appellant to establish that in the year 1996, during the pendency of the first appeal the respondent landlord got vacant possession of another shop. In the affidavit the appellant stated that the said shop is locked and the wife of Late Nannu Bhai Jardewale who was the tenant in another shop informed the appellant in the first week of January 2001, that she handed over the key of the shop to the appellant in the year 1996. Respondent landlord denied this fact in the reply and counter affidavit. It was stated by the landlord in the reply that he had not got the possession of the shop from the wife of Late Nannu Bhai Jardewale and the same is lying closed. 2. I have taken into consideration the alleged subsequent event but in absence of affidavit of the wife of late Nannu Bhai Jardewale I am unable to believe this fact that the plaintiff landlord acquired vacant possession of another shop in the year 1996. I do not find any merit in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. moved by the tenant appellant. It is accordingly dismissed. 3. Both the courts below after properly appreciating the evidence of the parties and considering the point of comparative hardship observed that the shop in dispute is reasonably and bonafidely required by the respondent landlord. I do not see any illegality in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the courts below. I am satisfied that no substantial question of law is involved in the instant second appeal. 4. The appeal fails and stands dismissed. No costs. Mr. Biri Singh, learned counsel for the tenant appellant seeks some time to vacate the premises in question. Prayer appears to be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. I therefore, direct that on being furnishing the undertaking by the tenant appellant that he would hand over the vacant possession of the shop in dispute on August 20, 2001, to the respondent landlord and regularly pay the use and occupation charges of the rented premises, decree shall not be executed till August 20, 2001.Appeal dismissed. *******