SUDARSHAN KHANNA Vs. KRISHNA KANTA BHASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the tenant, has assailed the concurrent findings of the Additional Rent. Controller (hereinafter referred to as ARC) and Additional Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as RCT) in favour of the grant of eviction orders under Section 14 (1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The eviction petition was originally filed under Section 14(1)(a) and (e) also; the bona fide needs was given up by the Respondent landlord; and the claim of non-payment of rent was upheld but the protection of Section 14(2) was granted to the tenant. In these proceedings the point for consideration is whether the landlord has succeeded in proving that the tenant (Petitioner before the High Court) has acquired vacant possession of a residence i.e. 1259/4, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, Delhi.

(2.) In the course of the appeal before the Tribunal an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed by the unsuccessful tenant which was rejected in the impugned Judgment for the reason (a) that the deposition of the landlord was believable and (b) that the documents could have been acquired and produced earlier. Undoubtedly the reasoning of the Rent Control Tribunal ought not to have been so very cryptic and laconic, but the factors which prevailed upon the Tribunal to disallow the application can be gathered. Mr. Ishwar Sahai, Learned Senior Counsel for the tenant has vehemently argued that keeping in mind that one of the documents sought to be produced was a registered Sale Deed of the Naiwala property, the authenticity of which could therefore not be questioned, it should have been considered by the Tribunal.

(3.) On a consideration of the law it will be seen that clause (a) of Rule 27 is clearly inapplicable. Clause (aa) of Rule 27 was also found not to be attracted since the Tenant was always in possession of the Sale Deed and had knowledge of the documents before the Municipality; and most importantly, the Tribunal did not require the production of these documents since it was satisfied that the landlord's evidence was trustworthy and credible. In this analysis, the authenticity of the Sale Deed was not relevant at all. Reliance on K. Venkataramiah vs. A. Seetharama Reddy and others, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1526 can be of no avail to the Tenant since both the Courts found that no ambiguity or two opinions existed in the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified in this very Judgment that the occasion for taking additional evidence would arise only where the the requirement is of the Court to enable it to pronounce judgment, and it is not likely to arise ordinarily unless some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent on an examination of the evidence. Reliance on the Order passed in Sarada (Smt) and Others vs. Manikkoth Kombra Rajendran, ( 1996 ) 8 Supreme Court Cases 345 does not advance the Tenants case either, since it appears that the Sale Deed which was the document in question, was intrinsically in in the contemplation of the Trial Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that this document should have been taken on record by the Appellate Court by allowing the application under Order XLI Rule 27. This Order is distinguishable since in the present case the Sale Deed was not even mentioned before the Controller and the question of its true construction thus did not arise. The facts of the case in hand is almost on and all fours with those in Maganlal Bhikamchand Mehar vs. Mulchand Jawarmal Nahar (dead) by L.Rs. and others, U.J. (S.C.) 135(1969) page 654. The Hon'ble Bench comprising of three Learned Judges took note that the document was sought to be brought into evidence "after the arguments concluded when it was clear that the High Court was recording a decision against the plaintiff. It was observed that "additional evidence is allowed to be produced for the requirement of the Court and not to enable a party to make good a deficiency in his case." M/s. Scooter India Ltd. vs. Subhash Chande Pahwa, 1993 (2) RCR 56 was decided without reference to any pronouncement of the Apex Court. It did not even attempt to lay down any principle of law and must be read as restricted to the facts of that case. In Akash Ganga Builder vs.G.P. Seth HUF, 1999 Rajdhani Law Reporter 410 it was the Appellate Court ilself which considered the document relevant and ordered its production. In this analysis, it is apparent that Order XLI Rule 27 is not available to a negligent and careless party who has lost the litigation. The words 'other sufficient cause' must be interpreted ejusdem generis with the main intendment of the Rule. In the present case assuming that the evidence of the parties presupposed that the Sale Deed was available on the record this may have constituted good ground for its introduction later on only if the Appellate Court harboured a doubt on the matter. The Rent Control Tribunal did not. In these circumstances I find no jurisdictional infirmity with the impugned order rejecting the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.