JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal is preferred to challenge the judgment and decree dated 15.5.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner affirming the judgment and decree dated 7.2.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sridungargarh. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that the landlord preferred a suit for eviction against the appellant on the ground of default and bonafide necessity. As per the plaintiff he is in need of premises as he want to shift his business from Dinhata (West Bengal) to his native town Sridungargarh. Such shift as per the plaintiff was desired due to naxalite movements existing at Dinhata. Learned trial court after considering the entire evidence available on record gave a finding of fact that need of the premises as claimed by the landlord is bonafide and as such he is entitled for getting a decree for eviction of the tenant from rented premises. 3. The first appellate court considered the judgment passed by the trial court and thoroughly examined the evidence available on record and affirmed the finding of fact. An application is preferred by the appellant as per provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 , Civil Procedure Code for taking certain documents on record with a view to establish that bonafide need as claimed has been extinguished. The application pertains to placement of certain electricity consumption bills relating to the plaintiff's house and on basis of that tenant want to establish that the landlord is not residing at Sridungargarh but is at Dinhata. 4. I do not find any reason to accept the application simply on the count that the document sought to be placed on record in no way effects the bonafide necessity claimed by the plaintiff adversely. For the sake of argument even if it is assumed that presently the plaintiff is staying at Dinhata then too this fact does not obliterate his position that he is interested and willing to start his business at Sridungargarh. 5. Accordingly, the application under Order 41, Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code is dismissed. The second appeal preferred by the appellant too is dismissed as the same does not involve any substantial question of law that may be warranting any interference with the concurrent findings given by the courts below. 6. 5. Accordingly, the application under Order 41, Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code is dismissed. The second appeal preferred by the appellant too is dismissed as the same does not involve any substantial question of law that may be warranting any interference with the concurrent findings given by the courts below. 6. At last, a request is made by counsel for the appellant to allow some time to appellant tenant for vacating the premises in question. The request so made is not seriously opposed in view of the fact that the court is also inclined to grant such time. Accordingly, while rejecting the appeal the appellant is permitted to retain the premises with him upto 31.3.2011 subject to the conditions that the appellant submit an undertaking before the learned trial court within a period of fifteen days from today that:- (1) He shall handover complete vacant possession of the rented premises in question to the respondent on or before 31.3.2011. (2) He shall not part with the possession of the premises or any portion of it to anybody else before handing over the vacant premises to the respondent. (3) He shall make the payment of rent to the respondent month by month and that is before 7th day of every month. (4) The arrears of rent and also the mesne profit as determined and awarded shall be paid to the respondent within a period of one month from today. 7. In the event, the appellant do not submit an undertaking as aforesaid or violate any condition thereof, then the respondent would be entitled to get the decree executed.Application and appeal dismissed. *******