KAMLESH KUMAR Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR AND 4 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(2.) The present petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging an order dated 19th Jan., 2017, passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi in Rent Control Appeal No.24 of 2015, by which application 21 C2 filed by the petitioner for taking additional evidence in the shape of an order dated 10th Aug., 2015 passed in proceeding under Sec. 30(1) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, has been rejected.

(3.) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 10th Aug., 2015, which was sought to be brought on record by way of an additional evidence, was passed on the same day on which the order allowing the release application filed by the landlord-respondent, under Sec. 21 (1)(a) of the U.P Act No.13 of 1972, was passed. Therefore, the petitioner could not have brought the said order on record while the proceedings were pending in the lower Court hence the said order dated 10th Aug., 2015 ought to have been taken on record by way of additional evidence in the appellate proceeding. It has been submitted that the order was relevant because the petitioner was not permitted to deposit the rent inasmuch as he failed to demonstrate that he was tenant which would go to show that there was no landlord-tenant relationship so as to make application under Sec. 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 maintainable.