RAM KUMAR GUPTA Vs. YOGRAJ AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition is filed assailing the order dated 09.02.2010, passed by the Additional District Judge, Rishikesh in Rent Control Appeal No. 69 of 2007 whereby application moved by the landlord/appellants/respondents herein under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. seeking permission to take on record certified copies of the sale deed, original will and of the assessment register of the Municipality and information received under the R.T.I. Act, was allowed. Landlord/appellants/respondents herein preferred an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for seeking possession of the property after eviction of the tenant/petitioner herein on the ground of bonafide need. Learned Trial Court/Prescribed Authority was pleased to dismiss the application so filed by the landlord on the ground that landlord has not placed on record either original sale deed or will and has placed on record only copies thereof. Learned Prescribed Authority further held that as per the copy of the will, property of municipal No. 42 seems to have been bequeathed, however, municipal number of the property was only 43. Feeling aggrieved, landlord petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority and moved application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. seeking permission to place on record certified copies of the sale deed, registered will, copies of the assessment register of the Municipality as well as information received from R.T.I.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another reported in : (2012) 8 SCC 148, has vehemently argued that application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. can only be heard and decided at the time of final hearing of the appeal to find out as to whether documents sought to be produced are required for the fair adjudication of the case or not and such application should not be entertained prior to the final hearing in the appeal.

(3.) MR . I.P. Kohli, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, submits that since copies of the will and sale deed were produced before the Prescribed Authority, therefore, certified copies thereof can be admitted during the appeal. He further contends that municipal number of the property is changed after every assessment undertaken by the Municipality. Further contends that in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India (Supra), application so moved by the appellants/respondents herein may once again be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal.