JUDGMENT : M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J. 1.This Execution Second Appeal arises from a Claim Petition filed by the Appellant/Trust and the 4 th respondent Trustee under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. The respondents 1 and 2 are the landlords with respect to the residential house bearing Building No.4/185. 2.According to the respondents 1 and 2, it was leased to the 3 rd respondent/Akhila Bharata Hindu Mahasabha. The respondents 1 and 2 filed R.C.P. No.12/2022, seeking eviction of the 3 rd respondent from the premises under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, a residential house bearing Building No.4/185. Eviction of the 3 rd respondent was ordered by the Rent Control Court as per Order dated 22.07.2023. 3.The respondents 1 and 2 filed E.P. No.741 of 2024 in R.C.P. No.12/2022 to execute the order of eviction against the 3 rd respondent. 4.The appellant and 4th respondent/Trustee filed E.A. No.3070/2024 in E.P. No.741 of 2024 to dismiss the Execution Petition on the ground that it is the first applicant who is the tenant of the petition schedule building based on an oral lease agreement with the respondents 1 and 2 on 07.08.2020. 5. Going by the allegations in EA No. 3070/2024, the petitioners entered into an oral lease agreement with the 1 st and 2 nd respondents for occupying the petition schedule building from 07.08.2020 fixing the monthly rent @ of Rs. 15,000/-, an advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- was also given to the respondents 1 and 2 and electricity charges was also agreed to be paid by the petitioners, the petitioners have been giving monthly rent to the respondents 1 and 2, but without impleading the petitioners, the respondents 1 and 2 obtained an eviction order against the 3 rd respondent and on the strength of the said order, the respondents 1 and 2 is attempting to evict the petitioners from the petition schedule building. 6.The Petition was opposed by respondents 1 and 2 by filing an objection contending inter alia that the Petitioners are not the tenants of the petition schedule building. There is no oral or written lease agreement between the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2. The respondents 1 and 2 are not aware of the petitioners. 6.The Petition was opposed by respondents 1 and 2 by filing an objection contending inter alia that the Petitioners are not the tenants of the petition schedule building. There is no oral or written lease agreement between the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2. The respondents 1 and 2 are not aware of the petitioners. The respondents 1 and 2 rented out the petition schedule building to Akhila Hindu Maha Sabha/3 rd respondent and the 3 rd respondent defaulted the monthly rent and when the rent was demanded, the 3 rd respondent filed O.S.No.2654/2019 before the Munsiff’s Court, Thrissur for getting an order against forceful eviction by the respondents 1 and 2. The 3 rd respondent contested the suit till 2024 and when the case was listed for evidence on 10.09.2024, the suit was not pressed. The 3 rd respondent remained ex parte in R.C.P.No.12/2022, but the delivery was resisted with his henchmen. Now, at the instance of the 3 rd respondent, the present claimant has filed the petition. 7.The Trial Court dismissed the Claim petition, finding that the petitioners did not produce any document to substantiate the contention that the petitioners are the tenants of respondents 1 and 2. On filing the appeal before the First Appellate Court by the petitioners, the same was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 8. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant Adv.Sri.Anupama Subramanian and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 who appeared and opposed the admission. 9. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that pursuant to the order of eviction in R.C.P. No.12/2022, the delivery of the petition schedule property was effected on 19.03.2025, and hence the appeal has become infructuous. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant pressed for consideration of the appeal on the ground that there is illegality in the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, and if the said orders are set aside, the appellant is entitled to get restitution. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant’s advanced contentions are with reference to ‘Annexure A’ to ‘Annexure R’ produced along with this appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant’s advanced contentions are with reference to ‘Annexure A’ to ‘Annexure R’ produced along with this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the various documents produced before the Execution Court as per List of Documents, which is produced as Annexures F and D. The learned counsel contended that though these documents were produced before the Trial Court, none of these documents were marked in evidence and considered by the Trial Court. 11. I am of the view that the mere production of some documents before the Execution Court is not sufficient to mark the same in evidence. If the petitioners wanted to mark those documents, it is for the petitioners to file necessary Evidence affidavit marking those documents and make themselves available for cross examination. Petitioners have not filed any Evidence Affidavit for marking and proving the documents. It is seen from the Appendix of the Trial Court order that nobody was examined, and no document was marked in evidence. The Trial Court found that there is no document or evidence to show that the claim petitioner is the tenant of the respondents 1 and 2. Even though the claim petitioner claimed that the rent of the premises was paid to respondents 1 and 2, not even a single document was produced before the Trial Court. Before this Court also no document in this regard is produced. The appellant has no right to produce documents as Annexures along with the Appeal Memorandum. The appellant has not filed a petition under Order 41 Rule 27 to accept additional evidence; This Court can consider additional evidence in the appeal only if the appellant files a petition under Order 41 Rule 27 and satisfies the requirements in the said provision. 12. Admittedly, the appellant herein is a Trust created by the office bearer of the 3 rd respondent/tenant along with some other persons. The 3 rd respondent/tenant is represented by a person Kishan C.J. It is seen from Annexure A Trust Deed produced along with the appeal that the very same Kishan C.J. created the Trust along with two other persons. The appellant obtained registration of the Trust using the building number of the petition schedule building. The 3 rd respondent/tenant is represented by a person Kishan C.J. It is seen from Annexure A Trust Deed produced along with the appeal that the very same Kishan C.J. created the Trust along with two other persons. The appellant obtained registration of the Trust using the building number of the petition schedule building. On the basis of the said registration, the appellant has obtained a bank account, etc, in the name of the appellant, showing the address of the petition schedule building. There is nothing on record to prove that the respondents 1 and 2 landlords have any connection with the Appellant Trust or with the alleged present office bearers. It is clear that the Appellant Trust started functioning in the petition scheduled building since the office bearers of the 3 rd respondent/tenant and the present Appellant were one and the same. 13.The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court correctly appreciated the pleadings and dismissed the claim petition. There is nothing wrong in the impugned orders. No substantial question of law arises in this matter. Accordingly, the Execution Second Appeal is dismissed.