Judgment :- Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant /tenant against a judgment of affirmation. Original respondent/plaintiff Karunamay Chatterjee filed eviction suit being Title Suit No.56 of 1976 against defendant/tenant Sk. Meser Ali alias Sk. Macher Ali for his eviction from a ground floor shop room on the ground of default as well as reasonable requirement for being used by his unemployed second son for running a grocery shop. Original defendant contested said suit denying all material allegations and contending inter alia that plaintiff did not reasonably require suit premises as alleged. Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground of reasonable requirement by judgment dated 25th of August, 1978. Defendant /tenant preferred an appeal which was dismissed on contest on 14th of February, 1979. Defendant /tenant preferred second appeal being Second Appeal No.1096 of 1979. The appeal was allowed and the suit was remanded back to learned Trial Court for allowing the parties to make amendments in pleadings for inclusion of subsequent events, if any, and also for adducing further evidence, if any, and then to dispose of the suit on the basis of evidence already on record and further evidence, if any. Said second appeal was disposed of by order dated 16th of March, 1989. After said remand there was amendment of pleadings and further evidence. Learned Trial Court again, after contested hearing, decreed the suit for eviction on the same ground of reasonable requirement. It was affirmed by the impugned judgment dated 8th of April, 1992 by learned Lower Appellate Court. Hence is this Second Appeal. At the time of admission no substantial question of law was framed. However, at the time of hearing of the second appeal the following substantial question of law was framed. “Whether learned Courts below substantially erred in law by decreeing the suit on the ground of reasonable requirement when there was no evidence of genuine need and / or requirement of the suit premises for being used by second son of the original plaintiff.” On 28th of July, 2011 appellants being substituted legal heirs of deceased original appellant /defendant filed an application for taking note of subsequent events and for treating the same as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Respondents being substituted legal heirs of original landlord filed an affidavit for opposition against said petition under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In reply, appellants filed affidavit in reply. As per usual procedure this appeal along with said application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure and its objection and rejoinder was taken up together for hearing. Mr. Goutam Kumar Das, learned advocate for the appellant, submits that the case of the original plaintiff that suit shop room is required for running a grocery shop of his second son was all along false and that second son used to look after landed properties of the plaintiff in his native village. It is further submitted that at the relevant time said second son was aged about 30+ years and by this time he is around 70 years old and it is most unnatural that a person of that age will venture starting of a grocery shop at this stage. It is further submitted that subsequent events show that there was remodeling and restructuring of the suit building and that several rooms were added in the first floor where landlord and his family members reside and some rooms in the ground floor became vacant during pendency of this suit but were used for purposes other than for running grocery shop by the second son of the plaintiff. He further submits that he has stated in details what was the extent of the construction in the suit house and what was the mode of use of the ground floor shop rooms and to whom those were allotted. In support of his contention he enclosed photos of suit house, one of earlier period and one of recent period. He also annexed one certified copy of the assessment list of the suit premises being Annexure-D. Mr. Das has further submitted that during pendency of the case the eldest son of the original plaintiff left the suit house and handed over one ground floor main road side room under his occupation to his youngest brother which showed that the requirement of his second brother (second son of original plaintiff) was not genuine one. Accordingly, he has prayed for remanding the case to the Trial Court for permitting the parties to adduce further evidence in support of their respective claims. Accordingly, he has prayed for remanding the case to the Trial Court for permitting the parties to adduce further evidence in support of their respective claims. In support of his contention he has referred case laws reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court page 1113 (M. M. Quasim versus Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors.), (2008) 8 SCC page 511 (North Eastern Railway Administration V. Bhagwan Das), (2010) 2 SCC page 316 (Shyam Gopal Bindal and others v. Land Acquisition Officer and another) and (2010) 8 SCC page 423 (Shalimar Chemical works Limited v. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills and others) Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh, learned advocate for the respondent/plaintiffs, on the other hand, submits that suit for ejectment was initially filed in 1976 and that this is the second round of litigation upto the stage of this Hon’ble Court. According to him, the defendant/tenant against whom eviction decree was passed twice and was confirmed by learned Lower Appellate Court twice was trying to delay the matter by filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure at this stage. In this connection, he submits that this second appeal through second round litigation was filed in 1992. But the petition praying for additional evidence and for taking note of subsequent events was filed only on 28th July, 2011. He further submits that in said application Annexure –B depicts two pictures, one alleged to be of the suit premises for the period 1980-82 and another for the period 1986 – 2011. He has also drawn my attention to the certified copy of assessment list (Annexure – D) which was alleged to be obtained by the original appellant/tenant on 14th of March, 1986. According to him, in the second round of litigation learned Trial Court passed judgement on 10th August, 1990 and Appeal Court confirmed the same by judgment dated 8th of April, 1992. According to him, these photographs and said assessment list should have been produced before learned Trial Court during 1990 or at least before learned Lower Appellate Court in 1992 before pronouncement of the respective judgments. But no explanation is coming as to why those documents which were claimed to be very important and vital, were not produced before those authorities. According to him, these photographs and said assessment list should have been produced before learned Trial Court during 1990 or at least before learned Lower Appellate Court in 1992 before pronouncement of the respective judgments. But no explanation is coming as to why those documents which were claimed to be very important and vital, were not produced before those authorities. According to him, this petition along with those documents have been filed at the time of hearing of this appeal just to drag this case which is remaining pending for about 35 years. Mr. Ghosh further submits that if a suit remains pending for years, there is bound to be some subsequent events but that does not mean on each and every occasion there has to be order of remand for taking note of the subsequent events so long those alleged subsequent events had no bearing in the matter or those alleged subsequent events were not brought into notice of the concerned Court promptly. In support of his contention he has referred case laws reported in (2001) W. B. L.R. (SC) 248 (Gaya Prasad versus Shri Pradeep Srivastava) and (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 256 (Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal). There is no denial that original plaintiff/ landlord filed said suit for ejectment mainly on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit shop room for running a grocery shop by his unemployed second son who was aged about 30+ at relevant time. Both the Courts of fact came to concurrent findings of fact on both counts that suit shop room was reasonably required for running a grocery shop by the second son of the original plaintiff. Those concurrent findings of fact of learned Courts below cannot be interfered in a second appeal unless it can be shown that those findings were based on no evidence or were perverse. The case of M. M. Quasim (ibid) as referred by learned advocate for the appellant/tenants lays down general principles regarding an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Said case law has not much application in the facts of this case as in that case the original landlord ceased to be landlord owner during pendency of the suit. But this is not the case in hand. Said case law has not much application in the facts of this case as in that case the original landlord ceased to be landlord owner during pendency of the suit. But this is not the case in hand. In North Eastern Railway Administration’s case (ibid) as referred by learned advocate for the appellants, Hon’ble Apex Court laid down general principles for applying Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to Hon’ble Court the question whether looking into the documents, sought to be filed as additional evidence, has to be considered by the Court at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits and that the Appellate Court has the power to allow additional evidence not only if it requires such evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment but also for any other substantial cause. The above proposition of law is certainly undisputed. In the case Shyam Gopal Bindal and others (ibid) it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that if a party can show sufficient cause for non-production of the documents earlier which are vital in nature then he may be permitted to produce the same as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Shalimar Chemical Works Limited Case (ibid) Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed the action of Appellate Court in allowing production of original certificates as additional evidence when xerox copies were illegally marked as exhibits in the Trial Court. The aforesaid case law has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. It appears from the judgment impugned that lower Courts took note of subsequent events namely remodeling of suit building, allotting of ground floor shop room to the youngest son of the plaintiff by the eldest son of the plaintiff and occupation of other shop rooms as also unsuitability of the ground floor south facing room for being used as a shop room for its situation in the side line, Commissioner’s report and other evidence on record. Courts below took note of subsequent increased demand of the family of landlord for growing up of grandsons of original plaintiff. Taking note of all these facts and evidence on record learned Courts below came to concurrent findings of fact that suit shop room is still reasonably required for being used by the second son of the original plaintiff. Those findings cannot be said to be perverse. Taking note of all these facts and evidence on record learned Courts below came to concurrent findings of fact that suit shop room is still reasonably required for being used by the second son of the original plaintiff. Those findings cannot be said to be perverse. Even a person aged about 70 years can still run a grocery shop in the absence of any evidence that he is incapable of doing so for physical inability or for any other reason. In Gaya Prasad’s case (ibid) Hon’be Apex Court held that the landlord moved for eviction of his tenant in respect of a shop building on the ground of carrying medical practice by his doctor son and also for running a radio repairing work by landlord who would retire soon. The suit for some reason continued for over 15 years and after passing of an eviction decree upto level of Hon’ble Court the tenant filed a review petition alleging that original landlord’s son has joined provoncial medical service and was posted in a distant place. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that during long 23 years after landlord moved for eviction on the ground that his son needed building, neither the landlord nor his son is expected to remain idle without doing any work, lest, joining any new assignment or starting any new work would be at the peril of forfeiting his requirement to occupy the building. The subsequent events to overshadow the genuineness of the need must be of such nature and of such a dimension that the need propounded by the petitioning party should have been completely eclipsed by such subsequent events. During this long interval of litigation, many many events are bound to take place which might happen in relation to the parties as well as the subject matter of the lis. If the cause of action is to be submerged in such subsequent events on account of the malady of the system it shatters the confidence of the litigant, despite the impairment already caused. These observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are worth noting. The present suit is prolonging and continuing for about 35 years since its filing. Some events, both major or minor, are bound to happen during this long 35 years but this Court has to see whether original cause of action namely requirement of second son of the original landlord is still existing or not. The present suit is prolonging and continuing for about 35 years since its filing. Some events, both major or minor, are bound to happen during this long 35 years but this Court has to see whether original cause of action namely requirement of second son of the original landlord is still existing or not. It is true that during this long pendency the eldest son of the original plaintiff vacated one ground floor shop room and handed over to his younger brother (youngest son of original plaintiff) for running a stationery shop as he was also unemployed having a family. This action cannot wipe out the existing need and requirement of the second son of the original landlord who remains unemployed all through. It is true that his sons have become adult and are presently employed in some offices but that cannot wipe out his requirement. There is nothing on record to show that he is ailing or unfit for running any such business in the suit shop room. Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure runs as follows:- “ Rule 27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if – (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. On plain reading of Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure it is apparent that production of additional evidence in Appeal Court can only be allowed if any of the conditions mentioned therein is fulfilled. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. On plain reading of Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure it is apparent that production of additional evidence in Appeal Court can only be allowed if any of the conditions mentioned therein is fulfilled. In the present case sub-clause (a) is not applicable, and sub-clause (aa) was grossly violated. The photo of the suit building for the alleged period of 1986-2011 did not pinpoint at what point it was taken. However, it appears that certified copy of assessment list of the suit premises was obtained by the original defendant/tenant on 14.03.1986. There is no explanation as to why the same was not produced before learned Trial Court or before learned First Appellate Court during pendency of the suit before them in 1990 and 1992 respectively. Sub-clause (b) is not attracted in this case. As such the conditions as mentioned under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure are not fulfilled. In this connection it is pertinent to note that though this second appeal was filed as far back as in 1992 but the instant application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed only in the fag end of July, 2011 when the appeal was ripe for hearing. This also showed malafide intention of appellant tenants to prolong the litigation even after 35 years though they suffered ejectment decree in both the Lower Courts. Considering all these facts and circumstances of this case I am of opinion that the instant petition under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure is liable to be rejected. Concurrent findings of fact of learned Courts below regarding reasonable requirement of the suit premises by the second son of the original plaintiff are found to be based on evidence. As such, there is no scope of interference of said findings of fact by invoking Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a result, the appeal fails. The application being CAN No.7225 of 2011 stands dismissed. However, I pass no order as to costs.