JAI GOPAL AGGARWAL Vs. ASHA RANI AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition is preferred invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 18.10.2014, passed by Prescribed Authority / Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramnagar, District Nainital as well as judgment and order dated 13.04.2015, passed by the Revisional Court / 1st Addl. District Judge, Nainital.

(2.) UNDISPUTED brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that respondent herein has filed release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the petitioner herein seeking eviction of the petitioner from the suit property on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. Petitioner contested the application by way of filing the written statement. On 02.05.2014, landlord respondent herein has filed affidavit in the plaintiff evidence. Thereafter, petitioner defendant thereof has filed counter affidavits in defence evidence on 04.07.2014 and 08.08.2014. Thereafter, plaintiff landlord has filed rejoinder affidavit on 19.09.2014. Petitioner defendant thereof has moved application dated 18.10.2014 before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that since plaintiff landlord has taken new pleas and has filed new documents in the rejoinder affidavit, therefore, opportunity to rebut those additional allegation and documents should be granted to the petitioner defendant thereof. Application so moved by the petitioner was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 18.10.2014 and revision arising therefrom also came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.04.2015. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IN the impugned judgment dated 13.04.2014, learned Revisional Court has observed that if plaintiff respondent has taken new case in the rejoinder that shall not be read and shall not be taken into account. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Sachedeva Vs. Mahendra Pratap Sah and others,2014 2 UD 92. In paragraph 8, this Court has observed as under : -