PRAVEEN KUMAR RASTOGI Vs. RAJ GOPAL ARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order Dated 26th March 2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kashipur in Rent Control Appeal No. 4 of 2005.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated that the respondent No. 1 has moved an application for release of shop in the tenancy of the petitioner and respondent no. 2 to 4 on the ground that the petitioners father had been tenant of the disputed shop and after his death the petitioner and other members of his family are the tenants. The petitioner contested the case alleging that the need of the respondent No.1 is not bonafide and the respondent No. 1 has been settled permanently in Shimla. The prescribed authority has come to the conclusion that the need of the applicant is not bonafide and dismissed the application for release vide order dated 23 -7 -2005. Feeling aggrieved the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Kashipur. During the pendency of appeal the petitioner filed an application on 22 -3 -2006 and affidavit together with a copy of bill dated 5 -10 -2004 to be brought on record in appeal. The appellate court invited objection from the respondent No. 1 and rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the application ought to have been filed before the Prescribed authority.

(3.) INSPITE of the notices issued to the respondent no. 1, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1. So far as additional evidence is concerned the appellate court can take into consideration the subsequent events during the pendency of rent control proceedings. While hearing the appeal the appellate court is at liberty to consider the genuineness of the documents itself. The application for additional evidence filed at the appellate stage cannot be rejected on technical grounds.