Judgment :- Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.:- This Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 25.06.2001 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sealdah in Title Appeal No.97 of 1997 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.643 of 1993. The respondent/plaintiff filed said suit for ejectment against appellant/plaintiff/tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent, reasonable requirement of the suit premises, committing nuisance and annoyance and causing damage by defendant/tenant. It is specific case of the plaintiff /landlord that her family consisted of herself, her husband and four sons. Out of which three are unemployed and that suit premises was required for starting a business by plaintiff’s unemployed son. The plaintiff is in possession of three rooms in the suit house though plaintiff reasonably requires two more bedrooms, one kitchen and one thakur ghar and one room for starting business by her unemployed son. As she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere she terminated tenancy of the defendant by sending a notice to quit which was duly received by defendant. The appellant/defendant contested said suit by filing written statement denying material allegations of the plaint and contending inter alia that plaintiff accepted rent from him upto July, 1989 without granting any receipt and thereafter she demanded for hike of rent and as defendant refused, this false case was filed. Plaintiff as well as her eldest two sons are of unsound mind. Said eldest two sons left plaintiff’s house long ago. Plaintiff is in possession of four rooms, a kitchen and one thakur gar. Plaintiff’s other sons being illiterate are not capable of starting any business. The suit was liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties learned Trial Court framed as many as eight issues. After taking evidence from both sides including the evidence of learned Advocate Commissioner learned Trial Court decreed the suit only on the ground of reasonable requirement. Learned Trial Court allowed defendant/tenant to avail the protection against eviction for default under Section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. According to him other alleged grounds of eviction as made out in the plaint were not established. Defendant/tenant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.97 of 1997 against said judgment and decree. Learned Trial Court allowed defendant/tenant to avail the protection against eviction for default under Section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. According to him other alleged grounds of eviction as made out in the plaint were not established. Defendant/tenant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.97 of 1997 against said judgment and decree. In the Lower Appellate Court appellant /tenant filed an application under Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure alleging that at the time of holding of local inspection during pendency of the suit in Trial Court the construction of rooms in the first floor were incomplete as noted by learned Commissioner, but after passing of decree those first floor incomplete rooms have since been completed and are being used by the plaintiff /landlady and her family members and accordingly a Commissioner is required to be appointed to take note of the conditions as well as measurements of those first floor rooms. Learned Lower Appellate Court proposed to take up said petition along with hearing of the appeal vide Order dated 1st of September, 1998. Ultimately, learned Lower Appellate Court rejected the appeal but did not pass any specific order relating to said application filed by appellant/tenant under Order 39 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure in his judgment dated 25.06.2001. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for adjudication in this second appeal. “Whether the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below has been wrong in not disposing of the appellant’s application under order 39 Rule 7 of the C. P. C. filed in view of the subsequent events, although the same Court by an earlier order dated 1.9.98 held that the points raised in the said application demand enquiry and the same should be disposed of along with the hearing of the appeal for the sake of fair adjudication.” During pendency of the second appeal respondent /landlady filed an application being C.A.N. No.2844 of 2010 praying for recording and/or taking notes of subsequent events for increasement of the family members of the plaintiff for fair disposal and adjudication of this appeal. In said application plaintiff has averred that out of four sons three sons were given married and that out of said wedlock two grand sons and two grand daughters of plaintiff were born and that the requirement of the plaintiff has since been increased manifold. Appellant/defendant/tenant has filed an affidavit in opposition alleging that the application for taking note of increasement of family members of the landlady is not justifiable in second appeal as per law. It was further averred therein that the claim of landlady about shortage of accommodation was not entertainable as appellant/tenant’s application under order 39 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure for local inspection was not disposed of by learned Lower Appellate Court. There is no denial that respondent/plaintiff was landlady and appellant/defendant was tenant under her and that his tenancy was duly terminated by a notice to quit. It is also not disputed that appellant tenant got protection against eviction for default under Section 17(4) of the Act and that the suit of ejectment was decreed only on the ground of reasonable requirement. Mr. D. N. Batabyal, learned advocate for the appellant/tenant, has submitted that ground of reasonable requirement of the suit premises should continue to exist till final determination of the case and that Appellate Court must take cognizance of subsequent events showing that landlord’s requirements have been met and must mould the Trial Court’s decree accordingly. In this connection he has referred a case law reported in (1981) 3 SCC page 103 (Hasmat Rai and another v. Raghunath Prasad). In this connection he has further submitted that the present appellant/tenant filed a petition under Order 39 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure in Lower Appellate Court praying for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note subsequent events namely completion of construction of first floor rooms in the suit house which were found to be under construction at the time of local inspection held during pendency of the suit in the Trial Court, and using of the same by the family members of the landlady and thereby satisfying their requirement, if any. According to him, learned Lower Appellate Court though kept said petition pending for disposal along with first appeal but did not pass any specific order relating to said application though learned Court mentioned about said application in his judgment. According to him, learned Lower Appellate Court though kept said petition pending for disposal along with first appeal but did not pass any specific order relating to said application though learned Court mentioned about said application in his judgment. Accordingly, he prays for remanding back the case to the Lower Appellate Court for allowing said pending petition under Order 39 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure and for writing fresh judgment regarding alleged further requirement, if any, of the plaintiff after consideration of report of the Advocate Commissioner. Mr. Sibaprasad Ghosh, learned advocate for the respondent/plaintiff, on the other hand, has submitted that the above referred case law has no application under the facts and circumstances of the case. According to him in the referred case law there was application filed by the defendant/tenant praying for amendment of written statement for bringing on record some subsequent events which was ejected by Appeal Court on ground of latches and that on that score Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “that the party should have been permitted to make those amendments to bring into record the subsequent events being relevant to the facts.” According to him, in the case in hand no such petition for amendment of written statement was filed by the appellant/tenant. Rather he filed a petition praying for appointing an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection to make out a case beyond his pleadings. I find much force in the aforesaid submission of Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the appellant/plaintiff. A party cannot go beyond his pleadings. If he wants to move the Court for noting subsequent events then he must bring those facts in his pleadings by way of amendment and then can ask the Court to take note of the same. In the case in hand no such application for amendment of W.S. was filed. Learned Lower Appellate Court though mentioned about filing of said application under Order 39 Rule 7 C. P.C. but did not pass any specific order against the same, though he considered the entire evidence on record relating to requirements of the plaintiff, their accommodation available, and the actual need of plaintiff. On perusal of the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court it appears that he virtually rejected said petition though in so many words it was not mentioned in the judgment, though it should have been to avoid future controversy over it. Mr. On perusal of the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court it appears that he virtually rejected said petition though in so many words it was not mentioned in the judgment, though it should have been to avoid future controversy over it. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the respondent/plaintiff, has further submitted that there is no need of remand of the case as it will be apparent from the evidence on record that the requirement of the plaintiff was not fulfilled even if it was accepted for argument’s sake that the unfinished constructions in the first floor of the suit building, as noted by learned Advocate Commissioner, were completed and came into possession of the plaintiff. As per plaint case plaintiff was in possession of three rooms in the suit house and reasonably required two more bed rooms, one kitchen, one thakur ghar and one room for starting business of her unemployed son. It came out from Commissioner’s report (Ext.10) that plaintiff was in occupation of one big room (room No.1) measuring 13ft. X 12 ft. 6 inches in the ground floor and one small room adjacent to room No.1 measuring about 10 ft. 4 inches X 3 ft. 10 inches (room No.2) which is being used for ingress and egress of the plaintiff’s occupied portions of the house. In first floor the Commissioner found three unfinished rooms being room No.3 measuring 10 ft. X 12 ft. 10 inches, room No.3 A measuring 7 ft. X 4 ft. and room No.4 measuring 9 ft. X 8 ft. 5 inches and one cover space in front of room No.3 and 3 A measuring 4 ft. X 4 ft. 5 inches. According to said report those rooms being room No.3, 3 A and 4 were under construction and were not used by the plaintiff at that point of time. Let us admit for argument’s sake that plaintiff by this time completed those unfinished rooms in the first floor as noted by learned Commissioner and are using the same. Then it comes that plaintiff is in possession of three moderately big rooms to be used as bedrooms namely room No.1, room No.3 and room No.4 and two very small rooms namely room No.2 and room No.3 A and a cover space measuring 4 ft. X4 ft. Then it comes that plaintiff is in possession of three moderately big rooms to be used as bedrooms namely room No.1, room No.3 and room No.4 and two very small rooms namely room No.2 and room No.3 A and a cover space measuring 4 ft. X4 ft. 5 inches in front of room No.3 and 3 A. Even if the subsequent events of increase of plaintiff’s family as made out in C.A.N. No.2844 of 2010 is not taken into consideration, still it appears that the plaintiff and her four adult sons require at least four bedrooms. But even after assumed completion of construction of first floor unfinished rooms plaintiff is in possession of three rooms which can conveniently be used as bedrooms. The small rooms can be used as store room, kitchen and thakur ghar. So, still plaintiff requires one bedroom and one room for business of her son. It is true appellant/tenant took the plea that one Suresh Sharma left away handing over of his tenanted room to the plaintiff. But it could not be established by appellant/tenant. Even if it is assumed that the room of Suresh Sharma is in possession of plaintiff still the same did not extinguish plaintiff’s requirement as plaintiff still requires one bedroom and one shop room. Admittedly, appellant/tenant’s tenancy comprises of one room only. So, from whatever angle it can be seen it appears that plaintiff was able to establish her reasonable requirement of the suit room not only at the time of filing of the suit but even today. If that be the position, then non-passing of any specific order of rejection by Lower Appellate Court regarding the petition filed by the appellant/tenant under Order 39 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure had no bearing on the ultimate outcome of this appeal. Accordingly, I find and hold that the instant appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. As a result, the appeal fails. The impugned judgment and decree of learned Lower Appellate Court stand confirmed. Send down Lower Court record along with a copy of this judgment at the earliest. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the learned Counsels of the party/ parties, if applied for.