IMMADISETTI MALLIKARJUNA RAO Vs. GOSTU PRAMELAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the order of dismissal of the petition for eviction of the revision petitioner from the building belonging to the respondent, filed under the provisions of the A.P.Buildings (lease, rent and eviction) Control Act 1960 (the Act) respondent filed a petition to receive certain documents as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., which was allowed by the Appellate Authority by the order under revision. Hence, this revision petition by the tenant.

(2.) Relying on Eureka Estates Private Limited V. A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and others, 2004(6) ALT 46 (DB), the contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the provisions of C.P.C. do not apply to the proceedings under the Act, and even assuming that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. can be entertained by him, the appellate authority was in error in straight away allowing the petition for receiving additional evidence even without going into the question whether there are grounds to receive additional evidence as contemplated by rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C. or not.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent is that appellate authority under the Act can admit additional evidence and since cogent reasons for allowing the application for additional evidence are given, the order under revision needs no interference.