ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. HARI SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Landlord-respondent filed release application under Sec. 21 (1) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) against the tenant-petitioner for his eviction from the tenanted shop in dispute on the ground that landlord bonafidely required the same. The release application was registered as Rent Case No. 05 of 2010 and was allowed on 29.07.2011 by Prescribed Authority/ IInd Addl. J.S.C.C., Kanpur Nagar. Against the said order petitioner has filed Rent Appeal No. 114 of 2011, which is pending before A.D.J., Court No.20, Kanpur Nagar. In the appeal petitioner filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. and Sec. 34 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for adducing additional evidence, which was rejected by A.D.J., Court No.20, Kanpur Nagar on 08.11.2012. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition.

(3.) The ground taken in the application was that the documents sought to be adduced as additional evidence were sought to be filed before the Prescribed Authority which wrongly refused to take them on record. In the impugned order lower Appellate Court has mentioned that the Prescribed Authority heard the arguments on five dates from 14.07,.2011 to 22.07.2011 and thereafter fixed 29.11.2011 for delivery of order, however, on 28.11.2011, one day before delivery of order application for additional evidence had been filed which could not be said to be proper filing of application. In this regard, the lower Appellate Court was quite correct. After the judgment, is reserved no application can be entertained as held by Honourable Supreme Court in AIR 1964 SC 993 Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar . However, the lower Appellate Court should have considered as to whether petitioner was entitled to file these documents as additional evidence before lower Appellate Court or not Accordingly, lower Appellate Court is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner for adducing additional evidence. If the lower Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that petitioner had sufficient reason for not filing the requisite documents before Prescribed Authority before 14.07.2011, then the same may be permitted to be adduced as additional evidence.