Judgment TARUN KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. DEFENDANTS are the appellants against this judgment of affirmation. The respondent as plaintiff filed a suit for eviction being Title Suit No.209 of 1999 with the following averments:- 2. PANCHU Gopal Konar was a tenant in respect of the suit premises at a rental of Rs.35/- per month payable according to English calendar month under one Probhat Kumar Dutta, the earlier owner. Plaintiff purchased said suit house through a kobala dated 5th May, 1986 and came into possession of other portions of the suit building. In spite of issuance of letter of attornment to the tenant Panchu Gopal Konar, no rent was paid to the plaintiff. Plaintiff later came to know that Panchu Gopal Konar left the suit premises with his wife long back by subletting the same to one Anath Nath Konar without consent of the landlord. 3. THE plaintiff's family consists of himself, his wife, three unmarried sons, one married daughter and one unmarried daughter. The plaintiff is in occupation of only one room on the ground floor, one room in the first floor and one temporary tin shed room on the roof of the suit building and due to paucity of accommodation plaintiff had to take another premises on rent. The plaintiff required one bed room for himself and his wife, three bed rooms for his three unmarried sons who have attained their marriageable age, one room for staying of his unmarried daughter as well as for taking coaching class of the students by his youngest son, one room for accommodation of his married daughter during occasional visits, one store room, one thakur ghar, one kitchen and one drawing room. Plaintiff had no other alternative suitable accommodation elsewhere other than the suit premises. The plaintiff reasonably required the entire suit premises for his as well as his family members' use and occupation. 4. THE plaintiff accordingly sent a notice dated 11th July, 1986 to the defendant tenant Panchu Gopal Konar in both the addresses of the defendant namely the address of the suit premises as well as at the address of his native village. The notice sent to the suit premises was received by Anath Nath Konar on behalf of Panchu Gopal Konar on 28th July, 1986. The notice sent to the suit premises was received by Anath Nath Konar on behalf of Panchu Gopal Konar on 28th July, 1986. The notice sent tot the native village of the tenant Panchu Gopal Konar was received by him on 22nd July, 1986 by putting his LTI thereupon. However, Panchu Gopal Konar died on 27th July, 1996 leaving behind his wife Gouribala Konar as his sole legal heir. Accordingly, plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment. 5. ORIGINAL defendant Gouribala Konar contested the suit by filing a written statement denying allegations of the plaint and contending inter alia that her husband Panchu Gopal Konar used to carry on business in Calcutta by taking tenancy of the suit premises wherein he used to reside with his wife Gouribala and two nephew namely Anath Nath Konar and Umesh Chandra Konar. They also occasionally visited their village house and never abandoned the suit premises. There was no question of subletting of suit premises to Anath Nath Konar. The defendant was not a defaulter in payment of rent. The plaintiff did not require the suit premises for his own use and occupation and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. AFTER contested hearing, learned Trial Court decreed the suit for eviction only on the ground of reasonable requirement of the same by the landlord for his and his family members' use and occupation. Therefore, learned Trial Court rejected the claim of sub-tenancy. The defendant tenant was also given protection against eviction on the ground of default under Section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 7. DEFENDANT tenant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.102 of 2004 which was dismissed on contest by the impugned judgment dated 30th March, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, 11th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta. 8. AT the time of admission of the second appeal, ground Nos. 1 and 2 were recognized as the substantial questions of law to be involved in this appeal. (I) For that the learned Judge of the Court below erred in law in not holding that eldest son's requirement has not been established when the eldest son has not examined as to his readiness and willingness to live with his parents in a joint mess. (I) For that the learned Judge of the Court below erred in law in not holding that eldest son's requirement has not been established when the eldest son has not examined as to his readiness and willingness to live with his parents in a joint mess. (II) For that the learned Judges of the Court below erred in taking into consideration the requirement of the plaintiff's eldest son who is living separately from his parents and whose eagerness for reunion has not been established. 9. DURING pendency of hearing of this appeal, the appellant defendant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for taking note of subsequent events as mentioned therein. The respondent plaintiff filed an affidavit in opposition against said application and the appellant also filed affidavit in reply. 10. MR. Banerjee, learned senior counsel for the appellants/defendants, assails the judgment of learned Courts below on the following grounds:- (1) Learned Courts below considered the requirement of the eldest married son of plaintiff, who is admittedly residing in a tenanted room away from the family of his father. Considering the requirement of the eldest son of the plaintiff when he did not come forward to depose that he wanted to stay in the suit house along with his father and other family members, vitiated the judgment of eviction being a perverse one. (2) Learned Courts below also erroneously considered the requirement of the eldest son of the plaintiff on the allegation that there was a strained relation between said eldest son as a tenant with his landlord as he was compelled to deposit the rent in the Rent Control Office for refusal to accept the same by his landlord, though no eviction suit was started by the landlord against him. (3) During pendency of the second appeal the youngest son of the plaintiff got married and he along with his family shifted to a purchased flat at Rakhal Apartment, Samar Pally, Kestapur at Kolkata and that in view of said shifting of the youngest son his requirement need no longer be considered. (4) Said shifting of the youngest son and his wife from the suit house was a subsequent event which is required to be noted by this Court during hearing of the second appeal as it reduced the alleged requirement of the respondent/ landlord. (4) Said shifting of the youngest son and his wife from the suit house was a subsequent event which is required to be noted by this Court during hearing of the second appeal as it reduced the alleged requirement of the respondent/ landlord. This Court should take note of said reduction of requirements due to subsequent events in view of the ratio of the case law as reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court page 365 (Govind vs. Dr. Jeetsingh). (5) In spite of said subsequent event even if the respondent landlord has any further requirement then the Court should consider whether said further requirement can be made through partial eviction of the tenant under Section 13(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. (6) The matter may be remanded back to the learned Lower Court for assessing the requirement, if any, of the respondent / landlord in view of the subsequent event as stated by the application being CAN No.4199 of 2012 and also to ascertain whether alleged requirement, if any, can be made by partial eviction of the tenants from the suit premises under Section 13(4) of the Act of 1956. 11. MR. Raut, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord, on the other hand, submits as follows:- (i) whether the landlord reasonably required the suit premises or not is a question of fact and that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and hence the same should be dismissed summarily. This Court should take note of the ratio of the case law reported in (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases page 546 (Gurdev Kaur and others versus Kaki and others) and (2008) 8 SCC page 497 (Deep Chandra Juneja versus Lajwanti Kathuria) in this regard. (ii) Due to paucity of accommodation in the suit house landlord's eldest son along with his family is compelled to reside in a rented house and the youngest son of the landlord has also been compelled to move away from the suit house after his marriage and that the landlord cannot be asked to split up his family to accommodate the tenant in the suit premises. This Court should take note of the ratio of the case law reported in (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases page 355M. L. Prabhakar vs. Rajiv Singal). This Court should take note of the ratio of the case law reported in (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases page 355M. L. Prabhakar vs. Rajiv Singal). (iii) During pendency of the suit the eldest son got married and had two sons and that thereafter second son and third son were also married and by this time the two sons of the eldest son of the landlord are in their teens and they also require one separate bed room for their use, and that these facts can certainly be taken note by this Court as subsequent events. This Court should take note of the ratio of the case law reported in (2005) 2 WBLR (Cal) page 116 (Netai Chandra Paul and Anr. Versus Dilip Kumar Saha). (iv) The plaintiff landlord requires the entire suit premises to meet his reasonable requirement and there is no scope of considering any partial eviction. This Court should take note of the case law reported in 2008 (2) CLJ (CAL) page 269 (Smt. Anna Purna Shaw vs. Sri Ananta Roy and Ors.). 12. ADMITTEDLY the question as to whether the landlord reasonably required the suit premises for his and his family members' use and occupation is a question of fact. In the case in hand, both the Courts below came to the concurrent findings of fact in favour of the plaintiff landlord. Said concurrent findings of fact even if erroneous cannot be interfered during hearing of the second appeal unless it can be shown that the same was based on no evidence, or was based on extraneous matters, or was passed against the settled principles of law. However, said concurrent findings of fact can also be interfered if it can be shown that by some subsequent events the requirement of the landlord is no longer subsisting. 13. NOW, it has been well settled that the reasonable requirement of a landlord means something more than mere desire but less than acute necessity. Obviously, in order to establish a case of eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement the onus is upon the landlord to prove the same. The landlord has to prove the need objectively. If the need is established, then it is to be decided as to how much is the need. Obviously, in order to establish a case of eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement the onus is upon the landlord to prove the same. The landlord has to prove the need objectively. If the need is established, then it is to be decided as to how much is the need. Then when the need has been proved objectively but when in view of the change of circumstances the original need has been considerably reduced then the Court can grant partial eviction even during hearing of the second appeal. 14. IT appears from the evidence of plaintiff's son (P.W.1) taken in the early part of 2002 that at that point of time plaintiff's family consisted of plaintiff and his wife, his eldest son with wife and two children, his two other sons in the marriageable age, two married daughters. During evidence said witness (P.W.1) projected the requirement of the plaintiffs and his family members as follows: one bed room for plaintiff and his wife, one bed room for plaintiff's eldest son and his wife and two children, two bed rooms for plaintiff's two unmarried sons in the marriageable age, one room for the visiting married daughters, one room as the tutorial room of the youngest son of the plaintiff who is an artist, drawing room, dining room, kitchen, store room and thakur ghar. It was further averred by P.W.1 that the present requirement of the plaintiff was not at all sufficient and that plaintiff's eldest son was compelled to reside in the tenanted room wherein there was a threat of filing eviction suit as landlord refused to accept rent for which rents were to be deposited in the office of the Rent Controller. It was further deposed that plaintiff has no other reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere. Said witness also stated in his evidence about the present available accommodation to them. It appears from the cross-examination of the said witness that the requirements as projected by him during his evidence in chief was neither assailed and nor even denied during the cross-examination save and except a general denial that the plaintiff had sufficient accommodation in the suit house. 15. It appears from the cross-examination of the said witness that the requirements as projected by him during his evidence in chief was neither assailed and nor even denied during the cross-examination save and except a general denial that the plaintiff had sufficient accommodation in the suit house. 15. IT appears from the Commissioner's Report that presently plaintiff was in occupation of three rooms in the ground floor out of which two are used as bed rooms and one as drawing room, one room in the first floor being used as another bed room and two rooms in the roof being used as kitchen-cum-dining and store room. 16. WHEN P.W.1 categorically deposed about the requirement of the married eldest son of the plaintiff having two children there was no specific cross- examination on that score. It came out from evidence that the tenanted room wherein said eldest son along with his wife and two children were residing was a rented room of the plaintiff even before the marriage of the eldest son. Under these circumstances it matters little whether the eldest son of the plaintiff comes to the witness box to plead his need or not. It is true that in view of the application being CAN No.4199 of 2012 it appears that the youngest son of the plaintiff had to shift to a purchased flat after his marriage. But that fact by itself cannot show that the youngest son of the plaintiff wanted to severe his ties with his family. It already came out that the youngest son being a professional artist required a room for giving tuition to his students. It also came out from the evidence on record that in view of acute paucity of accommodation in the suit house the plaintiff's eldest son was compelled to reside in a rented room with his wife and his two sons though the landlord stopped receiving payment of rent and there was a threat of filing an eviction suit against the plaintiff relating to said tenanted house. During argument it also came out that two sons of the plaintiff's eldest son who were mere children in 2002 have attained teenage by this time and that their requirement of one bed room for themselves will also come to the consideration of the Court as a subsequent event. During argument it also came out that two sons of the plaintiff's eldest son who were mere children in 2002 have attained teenage by this time and that their requirement of one bed room for themselves will also come to the consideration of the Court as a subsequent event. Two teenage sons require at least one separate room from their parents and that requirement cannot be said to be a fancy. The requirement of the plaintiff landlord comes to be one bed room for plaintiff and his wife, one bed room for his eldest son and his wife, one bed room for his second son and his wife, one bed room for his youngest son and his wife, one bed room for occasional visit of his married daughters as well as for other guests, one bed room for two grown up teenage sons of plaintiff's eldest son, one drawing room, one dining room, one room for giving tuition to the students by the plaintiff's youngest son, one kitchen, one store room and one thakur ghar, in total twelve rooms. Even if plaintiff's two teenage grandsons' requirement of one room is shelved still plaintiff reasonably requires eleven rooms out of which five will be used as bedrooms. As per Advocate Commissioner's report the plaintiff was in occupation of six rooms out of which three were bedrooms. The suit premises consist of four rooms which included two bed rooms, one kitchen-cum-dining and one store room other than bath and privy. As such, it appears that the entire suit premises is reasonably required by the plaintiff landlord for his and his family members use and occupation. If said requirement of the landlord is not allowed then he would be compelled to continue to live by splitting his family. In this connection it may be noted that the suit for eviction was initially filed in 1986 i.e., about 26 years back and there were amendments in 1996 followed by evidence, judgment and appeal hearing. Now-a-days there is a proverbial delay in disposing of a civil suit up to the level of second appeal in the High Court. In view of said inordinate delay there is bound to occur subsequent events having some bearing on the initial requirement of the landlord in the suit premises. Now-a-days there is a proverbial delay in disposing of a civil suit up to the level of second appeal in the High Court. In view of said inordinate delay there is bound to occur subsequent events having some bearing on the initial requirement of the landlord in the suit premises. At the time of passing judgment in the second appeal this Court is required to look those subsequent events and their impacts on the original requirement of the landlord and should pass necessary order, if required, by moulding the relief. 17. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsels of the parties as well as the ratios of the case laws referred by them. From the materials on record as well as from the submissions of the learned counsels of the parties I am of opinion that the concurrent findings of fact of learned Courts below that the landlord reasonably required the suit premises for his and his family members' use and occupation do not call for any interference by this Court even after noting of subsequent events as made out by the parties in their application, written objection and reply thereto. As it came out that the entire suit premises is required for reasonable use and occupation of the respondent / landlord the question of partial eviction does not arise in the facts and circumstances of this case. 18. AS a result, the appeal is dismissed on contest. The application being CAN No.4199 of 2012 stand disposed of accordingly. However, I pass no order as to costs. Send down Lower Court record along with a copy of this judgment to the Lower Court at the earliest. 19. URGENT Photostat certified copy of this judgment be supplied to learned counsels of the parties, if applied for.