Judgment :- Tarun Kumar Gupta, J This appeal is directed against judgment of remand dated 29th of January, 2007 and decree thereof dated 13th February, 2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court, Paschim Midnapur in other appeal No.7 of 2006 reversing the judgment and decree of ejectment dated 19th December, 2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Midnapur in other Suit No.126 of 1991. The appellant /plaintiff/landlord filed said suit for eviction against respondent/defendant/tenant on the ground of default as well as on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit shop room for use by` her husband. The suit as usual was preceded by a notice of ejectment. Plaintiff has no other reasonable suitable accommodation for running a shop room by her husband. Later at the instance of the plaintiff/landlord part 3(a) elaborating the justification of requirement of the suit shop room was added in the plaint by way of amendment. The respondent/defendant/tenant contested the suit by filing written statement followed by additional written statement denying material allegations of the plaint and contending inter alia that defendant advanced Rs.25,000/-to the previous owner Jayanti Rana as security as well as advanced money for sale of the property by said landlady to the defendant. There is written contract with Jayanti Rana for tenancy for 10 years with effect from 16th May, 1987 and the suit was premature. The defendant was not a defaulter. The husband of plaintiff was a hawker and he does not require suit shop room for starting a business. The case was filed so that after eviction of defendant/tenant suit shop room can be let out again with heavy salami. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following six issues were framed. 1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and prayer? 2. Is the notice under Section 13 (6) of the W.B.P.T. Act legal and valid? 3. Are the defendants habitual defaulter in payment of monthly rents in respect of the suit premises? 4. Has the plaintiff any reasonable requirements in respect of the suit premises? 5. Is the plaintiff entitled to get the decree as prayer for? 6. To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to? 3. Are the defendants habitual defaulter in payment of monthly rents in respect of the suit premises? 4. Has the plaintiff any reasonable requirements in respect of the suit premises? 5. Is the plaintiff entitled to get the decree as prayer for? 6. To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to? After contested hearing learned Trial Court came to the findings that defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent and that plaintiff reasonably required the suit shop room for her husband’s business and that plaintiff had no other reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere. Accordingly, learned Trial Court passed a judgment and decree of ejectment in favour of plaintiff / landlord and against defendant/tenant. In the Lower Appellate Court appellant /defendant/tenant filed a petition under order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. together with a bunch of challans praying for admitting those challans in the evidence to show that defendant was not a defaulter in payment of rent. In the Lower Appellate Court plaintiff /landlord also filed some medical papers for considering the same as additional evidence and Lower Appellate Court accepted those papers. In the Lower Appellate Court the appellant /defendant /tenant took the plea that plaintiff has a big house just behind the suit shop room and hence the requirement of said shop room was not reasonable. This was denied from the side of respondent/plaintiff /landlord as said house was inside a lane but just behind the said shop room which was on the main road. However, admittedly learned Trial Court did not frame any specific issue as to whether landlord had any reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere. Learned Lower Appellate Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal in part and remanded back the case to the Trial Court for framing additional issue on the point of availability / non-availability of alternative suitable accommodation of the plaintiff /landlord and also for deciding issue No.3 i.e. default upon consideration of challans and documents filed by the appellant /tenant before said Court as also for deciding the issue by reasonable requirement. Mr. Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury, learned senior counsel for appellant /plaintiff, has submitted that when there were specific averments in the plaint that plaintiff had no other reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere and there was denial to that effect from the side of the respondent/defendant, and both the parties laid evidence on their respective claims on this point, it matters little whether specific issue on that point was framed or not. He further submits that this cannot be a ground for remand of the case when sufficient evidence on this score adduced by both sides in support of the respondent’s claims, is already on record. In this connection he has referred case laws reported in 85 CWN page 548 (Banka Behari Dutta vs. Gour Mohan Dutta) and 90 C.W.N. page 1086 (Trilak Jain alias Trilak Chand vs. Hirendra Kumar Mittar and another). In Banka Behari Dutta’s case (supra) it was specifically held by this Court that “where though no issue was framed as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of any other reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere, but the parties went to trial on full comprehension of the issue involved and adduced evidence in support of their respective cases and refutation of the case of the other side and the Lower Courts arrived at their conclusion on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence, there is no scope for holding that the decision of the Lower Courts is not sustainable in law and that remand for the adjudication of the relevant issue omitted to be framed by the Trial Court was necessary. The subsequent judgment of Trilak Chand Jain (supra) also laid the same principle. Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharjee, learned advocate for the tenant, on the other hand, has submitted that on account of non-framing of the specific issue as to whether plaintiff has any other reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere, the respondent/defendant /tenant could not take necessary step in this regard to disprove the same. According to him, the order of remand was justified. However, I find little merit in the aforesaid submission of Mr. Bhattacharjee. It appears from the Lower Court records that both the parties gave evidence on this point in support of their respective stands though no such specific issue was framed. According to him, the order of remand was justified. However, I find little merit in the aforesaid submission of Mr. Bhattacharjee. It appears from the Lower Court records that both the parties gave evidence on this point in support of their respective stands though no such specific issue was framed. As such non-framing of said specific issue, did not prejudice respondent/defendant/tenant, as he knew the stand of the plaintiff/landlord on this point and also gave specific evidence denying the same. Learned Lower Appellate Court also remanded the suit to the Trial Court for deciding issue No.3 i.e., default upon consideration of challans and documents filed by the appellant/tenant before said Court along with a petition under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Roy Chowdhury in this connection submits that appellant/plaintiff admits the validity of those challans and that defendant was no more a defaulter in view of those challans and hence there is no necessity of supporting said order of remand for fresh decision on issue No.3 i.e., default. As appellant / plaintiff /landlord is admitting those deposits through challans as valid and is not pressing the ground of default, I am of the opinion that issue No.3 need not be required to be decided afresh by Trial Court. Learned Lower Appellate Court also directed learned Trial Court in the order of remand to decide afresh the issue of reasonable requirement. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, advocate for the appellant/plaintiff, has submitted in this connection that learned Trial Court made elaborate discussion on the point of reasonable requirement in perspective of entire evidence on record and that further direction to learned Trial Court to decide on this issue afresh was redundant. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate, on the other hand, submits that at the time of deciding the issue of reasonable requirement learned Trial Court placed reliance on the evidence adduced by P.W.s. on the facts which were brought on record by way of amendment through para 3 (A) of the plaint. According to him, under Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiff is required to file an amended plaint within 15 days or within the dates specified by Court and that this process was not followed in this case. According to him, under Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiff is required to file an amended plaint within 15 days or within the dates specified by Court and that this process was not followed in this case. According to him, learned Trial Court should not have looked into the evidence in support of the averments made by incorporating para 3 (A) of the plaint through amendment, as plaintiff failed to file amended plaint as per Order 6 Rule 18 C. P. C. In this connection, he referred the case law reported in 2002 (2) SCC page 445. In said referred case law Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated what should be the procedure for effecting amendment in the pleadings and also discussed the importance of Order 6 Rule 18 C. P. C. In this connection Mr. Bhattacharjee also referred a case law reported in 1995 (1) CHN page 27 (Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd., v. Ocean Blue Compagnia Merritime S. A. and others.) In the later referred case, this Court held that though Order 6 Rule 18 C. P. C. does not expressly contain that in case of non-incorporation of the ordered amendment “the order shall cease to have effect”, such words must necessarily be read into said rule. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, in the case in hand, plaintiff has failed to file an amended plaint in terms of Order 6 Rule 18 and hence the amended portion should not have been looked into by the Court. Mr. Bhattacherjee learned advocate has submitted that there was no locale inspection by plaintiff to show that her present accommodation is unsuitable for having a shop therein. According to him, liberty should be given to the respondent/defendant to make said local inspection by applying to the Court to disprove the plaintiff’s case of reasonable requirement. In a case of reasonable requirement it is the duty of the plaintiff /landlord to show that he reasonably requires the suit premises and that he has no other suitable accommodation elsewhere. The onus is primarily on the landlord. If landlord fails to hold local inspection in this regard and there is evidence on record to the contrary then he will face the consequences. The onus is primarily on the landlord. If landlord fails to hold local inspection in this regard and there is evidence on record to the contrary then he will face the consequences. However, if landlord intentionally omits to hold local inspection and tenant desires to pray for local inspection to disprove assertively landlord’s claim in this regard, the tenant should not be denied the opportunity. As such I find merit in the submission of Mr. Bhattacharjee. Mr. Roy Chowdhury in reply submits that in the referred case the defendant moved High Court challenging the order of allowing amendment as well as for not following the prescribed procedure under Order 6 Rule 18 C. P. C. But in this case as per order of the Court the amendment petition was made a part of the plaint. Respondent/defendant filed additional W.S. against said amendment. Both parties adducing evidence in support of and / or challenging the averments made through said amendment. According to him, at this stage those case laws have no application. I find much force in the aforesaid submission of Mr. Roy Chowdhury as said amendment was not challenge, and additional W.S. was filed, and both parties adduced evidence in support of their respective stands relating to said amendment. There is no scope to reopen that matter at this stage. Mr. Roy Chowdhury next submits that Lower Appellate Court should have decided all issues including the issue as to whether the plaintiff has any other reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere as both parties adduced exhaustive evidence on all issues including the last one though said last one was not framed. According to him, the impugned judgment allowing remand is not sustainable. In this connection, he, however, submits that as this is an old case, this Court without remanding the matter to the Lower Appellate Court for writing fresh judgment may take up the case on merit, on the basis of evidence already referred, as if this Court is a Court of first appeal. In this connection, he referred case laws reported in (200) 1 SCC 644 (Sub-inspector Rooplal and another v. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary) and 71 CWN page 302 (P. Bhaskaran v. Indian Iron and Steel Co.) In both referred case laws the higher forum took the duty of Lower Forum regarding appreciation of evidence on record to avoid delay. Mr. Bhattacharjee, however, has vehemently opposed this proposal. Governor through Chief Secretary) and 71 CWN page 302 (P. Bhaskaran v. Indian Iron and Steel Co.) In both referred case laws the higher forum took the duty of Lower Forum regarding appreciation of evidence on record to avoid delay. Mr. Bhattacharjee, however, has vehemently opposed this proposal. According to him this Court should have function as the Court of Second Appeal under Section 100 C. P. C. on the basis of judgment of Lower Appellate Court being the last Court of facts. If this Court takes the function of Lower Appellate Court as the Court of facts then the parties will lose a forum namely the Forum of Second Appeal. He further submits that Lower Appellate Court can at best be directed to write the judgment afresh on all issues without remanding the case to the Trial Court to save time. In this connection he, however, submits that Lower Appellate Court should also be directed to give liberty to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, on the point as to whether plaintiff has no other reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere. Admittedly, Lower Appellate Court is the last Court of finding of facts. It is his duty to scan the judgment of Trial Court not only on the points of law but also on scrutinizing the evidence on record. A Court of Second Appeal should not usually take up the function of First Appellate Court. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment of remand of Lower Appellate Court is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. I find merit in the claim of Mr. Bhattacharjee that parties should be given liberty to apply for local inspection of landlords present accommodation and also to adduce further evidence, if any, on the point as to whether plaintiff has any alternative suitable accommodation elsewhere or not. I find from the record that though no specific issue was framed, both the parties adduced some evidence on this point in support of their respective stands. As a result, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment of remand dated 29th Janaury, 2007 and decree thereof dated 13th February, 2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court, Paschim Midnapur in Other Appeal No.7 of 2006 is hereby set aside. As a result, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment of remand dated 29th Janaury, 2007 and decree thereof dated 13th February, 2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court, Paschim Midnapur in Other Appeal No.7 of 2006 is hereby set aside. The matter is hereby remanded back to the learned Lower Appellate Court for giving opportunity to the parties to have local inspection, if any, of the present accommodation of the landlord and proving said report, if any. Thereafter he should write a fresh judgment touching all issues including the issue as to whether plaintiff has reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere or not, after giving opportunity to the parties to submit arguments, if any. Learned Lower Appellate Court is at liberty to frame a specific issue to that effect. Office is directed to send down the case record to the Lower Appellate Court by a special messenger at the cost of the appellant/plaintiff. However, if appellant/plaintiff does not deposit said cost of special messenger within three days from the date of delivery of judgment then Lower Court records be transmitted as per usual procedure. Learned First Appellate Court is hereby requested to deliver judgment as per law within two months from the date of receipt of the case record along with a copy of the judgment, without granting unnecessary adjournments to the parties. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the learned Counsels of the party/parties, if applied for.