SMT. SARASWATI MOHAN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landladys petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution arising out of proceedings for release of a bungalow No. 44, Kalagarh Road, Dehradun.

(2.) The brief relevant facts are that a former tenant Roy vacated the premises on 31-5-1977 and the landlady, aged about 70 years, applied for release. There were also a number of other applicants for allotment. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer per order dated 5-10-1977 rejected the release application and allotted the house to respondent No. 3, who is an officer in the Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The District judge in revision has confirmed that order. These are the orders impugned by this petition.

(3.) The first point urged was that the District Judge had not passed any orders on the application of the petitioner supplying ten documents by way of evidence before him in revision. It was contended that a revisional court has jurisdiction to admit additional evidence and the District Judge should have decided the question whether this additional material should be admitted or not and if it was admitted should have given his decision I after considering that material. It appears from para 7 of the petition that the application was not really for filing additional evidence but for filing papers which had already been filed before the Prescribed Authority but were asserted to be missing from the record. Details of these documents have been given in para 18 of the present petition and these bear mainly on (1) sanction in 1975 of the City Board, Dehradun for building plan of first storey on house No. 44, Kalagarh Road, (2) illness of M. C. Mohan, husband of the petitioner in Feb. and March, 1977, and (3) shifting of the petitioner to Dehradun and taking up residence in the disputed premises after the filing of the present application for release. The copy of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 5-10-1977 shows that it had taken into consideration all these points as well as the alleged heart trouble of the elder son, S. Mohan, due to which the family was said to have decided to settle at Dehradun. It also considered the advertisement dated 16-5-1977 in Hindustan Times for the sale of the house, the explanation for which was that it was put in by the petitioners husband without her authority. The revisional courts order records the finding that the decision of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was not shown to suffer from any infirmity that could be taken note of under Sec. 18 of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter called the Act). It is clear that in these circumstances it was not a case where the revisional court was called upon to decide whether additional evidence could or should be admitted. It duly considered the decision of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer who arrived at that finding after taking note of the papers said to have been missing at the revision stage and filed before the revisional court. There is no allegation that any particular feature in the missing papers was not noticed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and materially affects the finding. Therefore the finding or the order cannot be attacked on this ground.