RAMESHWARI DEVI Vs. RAKESH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dtd. 8/8/2023, passed by the Appellate Authority/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 4 / Special Judge (EC Act) Pilibhit, in P.A. Appeal No. 8 of 2023 (Rameshwari Devi and another vs. Rakesh Mishra) whereby and whereunder the Application filed by the petitioner for adducing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Sec. 151 CPC has been rejected.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that they are tenants of a shop situated in Mohalla Bazar Katra, Tehsil and Town Area Bisalpur, Pilibhti and are conducting the business of Bangles from the shop in question. Originally, the tenancy of the shop was in the name of Shri Radheyshyam the late husband of the petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner no. 2. After the death of Shri Radheshyam the tenancy devolved upon the petitioners. The shop was originally owned by one Sushil Kumar and was purchased by the respondent herein vide Sale Deed dtd. 21/7/2015. A Release Application under Sec. 21(1)(a) of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the respondent without issuing notice to the petitioners as contemplated under the 1st Proviso to Sec. 21(1) of the Act which proceedings were registered as PA Case No. 114 of 2018. The petitioners appeared in the Case and filed their objections taking a specific plea in their objections that the plaintiff/ respondent had not served any notice upon the petitioners/ tenants that he had purchased the shop. The learned Prescribed Authority, vide judgment and order dtd. 20/1/2023 allowed the Release Application. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority, have preferred an Appeal being Appeal No. 8 of 2023. During the pendency of the Appeal the original Counsel of the petitioners, conducting the Appeal, namely Shri V.S. Ashok took retirement from the profession and the petitioners had to engage another counsel namely Shri Ishan Gupta. Shri Ishan Gupta, Advocate on going through the file opined that certain relevant documents had not been brought on record and accordingly the petitioners preferred an Application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC dtd. 9/5/2023 annexing the documents/evidence to be brought on record for consideration of the Appellate Authority in seisin of the Appeal. The documents sought to be filed as Additional Evidence were (i) certified copy of order dtd. 13/2/2020 passed in Original Suit No. 113 of 2016 (ii) certified copy of the Commission Report (iii) certified copy of the extract of the House Tax Assessment pertaining to the year 2017-18 pertaining to the plaintiff/ respondent and his wife, photographs of the disputed shop and original invitation Card. The landlord/respondent filed objections to the Application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The Appellate Authority vide order dtd. 8/8/2023 has rejected the Application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC which order has been impugned in the instant petition.