Judgment ( 1. ) Heard on the question of admission as well as on application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with section 151 CPC (I.A.No. 19281/09) and application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC (I.A.No. 19282/09). ( 2. ) This appeal has been preferred by the defendant/tenant against the decree for eviction and arrears of rent against him passed by the Courts below in concurrent manner. ( 3. ) Shri Rajeev Jain, learned counsel submitted that the plaintiffs have various shops and have no bona fide in seeking eviction. This apart, it is contended that the suit shop is in dilapidated condition not capable of allowing the proposed business in it. To buttress this submission, learned counsel drew attention of this Court to paragraphs 9 of chief-examination of the plaintiff (P W1), wherein the plaintiff has stated that he has applied for reconstruction vide Ex.P/10. On perusal, it is found that ExP/10, is an application for permission to construct. Since no map is annexed to Ex.P/10, nothing in specific maybe inferred from it. More so, the plaintiff has sought eviction vide para 7 of the plaint on the ground that there are two shops on the ground floor, one belonging to defendant and another belonging to another tenant namely Kailashchand. On the upper floor, there is residence of plaintiff, therefore, he can conveniently run the business in the shops sitauted on the ground floor. Thus, both the aforesaid tenanted shops are described as suitable for the purpose of business of the plaintiff. ( 4. ) Further attention of this Court has been drawn to paragraph 23 of PW 1 wherein he has stated that a passage is to be constructed after demolition of shops. However, on close scrutiny, it is found that plaintiff has nowhere admitted that the suit shop would be utilised for making a passage for going inside. Faced with this, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff in an earlier round of litigation had admitted vide Ex.D/66 that the suit shop would be utilised for constructing and creating a passage for going inside. I perused Ex. D-66 and in specific para 12 thereof. Plaintiff in this paragraph has stated that he will construct shop in the area of 20ft. x 26ft. I perused Ex. D-66 and in specific para 12 thereof. Plaintiff in this paragraph has stated that he will construct shop in the area of 20ft. x 26ft. after seeking vacation of the suit shop as well as other shops occupied by Kailashchand Choudhary and another tenant namely Ramesh Chand. On futher perusal it is observed that the plaintiff was conroverted with Ex. D/66 as revealed in these paragraphs that the plaintiff has categorically denied that he would create a passage after demolition of the tenant shops for going inside. Thus, the contention of the appellant that the plaintiff is seeking eviction not for starting business but for making a passage for going inside is not found substantiated by the material on record. In any case, if the plaintiff after obtaining eviction utilises the suit shop except for business purpose, the tenant shall have every right to re-entry to be exercised in accordance with law. ( 5. ) Question of bona fide need is a question of fact unless it is vitiated due to perversity. Suit for eviction against other tenants namely; Kailashchand and Rameshchand have already been decreed. Recently, while dismissing Second Appeal No. 536/08 (preferred by Kailashchand), this Court vide order dated 12.2.2009 has granted time upto 30th June 2010 for eviction in peaceful and voluntary manner. Likewise, I do not find any material on record in view of the finding about bona fide need or in alternative availability of other non residentail suitable premises. ( 6. ) By virtue of application of amendment vide I.A.No. 19281/09, it is stated that the plaintiff has acquired vacant possession of the shop from another tenant namely; Rameshchand and his need is satisfied. Vide application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC (IANo. 19282/09) permission has been sought to produce certain additional documents. ( 7. ) Firstly, as revealed in the order passed on 14/7/2008, it is clear that the plaintiffs are not in receipt of vacant possession of any suitable non-residential premises. This being so, application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC (IANo. 19281/09) is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Likewise, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC (IANo. 19282/09) is also dismissed because the proposed documents are not necessary looking to the nature of controversy involved in the eviction suit. ( 8. This being so, application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC (IANo. 19281/09) is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Likewise, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC (IANo. 19282/09) is also dismissed because the proposed documents are not necessary looking to the nature of controversy involved in the eviction suit. ( 8. ) Learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to point out consideration of any inadmissible evidence or non-consideration of any admissible piece of evidence. This being so I am not inclined to interfere in the finding in favour of plaintiff about bona fide need recorded by the Courts below in concurrent manner. ( 9. ) In the result, appeal being devoid of substantial question of law, is hereby dismissed summarily. ( 10. ) In the last, learned counsel for appellant prays for reasonable time for vacation as granted in S.A.No. 536/09 against the same landlord/respondent. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, though the appeal is dismissed, decree of the trial Court shall not be executed before June 2010 subject to compliance of following conditions :- 1. Defendant/appellant shall pay/deposit the entire rent upto June 2010 within a period of one month. 2. Defendant/appellant shall submit an undertaking on affidavit within one month from today before the trial Court that he shall deliver vacant possession of the suit shop to the decree holder in peaceful and voluntary manner; latest by 30th June 2010. 3. Defendant/Appellant shall not sub-let or part with the possession of the suit shop in favour of third person and shall not create third part} interest in it and further shall not hand over the possession of the suit shop to any one except the plaintiffs. It is made clear that in case of non-compliance of any of the terms stated hereinabove, the decree shall become executable immediately forthwith. Appeal accordingly stands dismissed with aforesaid directions.