MOOL CHAND Vs. TRILOK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) U. S. Tripathi, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and perused the record. This writ petition has been tiled for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12-01-2001 passed by XVth Addi tional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Revision No. 137of 1999.

(2.) THE respondent filed SCC suit No. 95 of 1991 against the petitioner for his ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages on the ground of subletting and changing the user of the premises. THE petitioner contested the suit denying the relationship of landlord and tenant be tween the parties. THE Trial Court decreed the suit for ejectement as well arrears of rent and damages. Aggrieved with the above judgment and decree the petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 137 of 1999 before District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. THE revision was transferred to the Court of XVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar for disposal.

(3.) THE above order has been chal lenged in this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, as narrated above. THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that assuming that provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27 C. P. C. are not applicable to the revisional proceeding, additional evidence may be admitted in the exercise of inherent power of the Court. He placed reliance on Division Bench case of this Court in Vlrendra Singh Kushwaha v. Vllth Additional District Judge, Agra and others, 1996 (28) ALR 185 ; 1996 (2) JCLR 69 (All ). It was held in the said case that in the exercise of inherent power of the Court it revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act in its may admit the additional evidence. Thus, there is no bar of taking additional evidence by the Revisional Court in exer cise of its power under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It was further held in the said case that it is also settled law that the additional evidence urged to be allowed to be admitted must be relevant to decide the real controversy and the Court must feel that the admission of the same is required in the interest of justice/, r. it must meet the requirements of provisions of Order XL!, Rule 27 C. P. C. .