(1.) .This revision petition arises from an order of the appellate authority under the Rent Act passed on 23rd September, 1965. What happened in this case was that the respondents' father filed an application for eviction on various grounds. The petition was resisted by the tenant who is the petitioner before us. Negativing his contention, eviction was directed by the Rent Controller. The tenant therefore preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal he filed an application to receive an additional documentary evidence in the form of a note took alleged to be containing entries signed by the father of the respondents. The explanation for not filing it before the Rent Controller was given in an affidavit. It stated that the note book was misplaced and since it is now found out it is produced before the appellate authority. The appellate authority disbelieved this affidavit and refused to receive the additional documentary evidence. It is that order that is now challenged in this revision petition.
(2.) .The principal contention of Mr. B. P. Jevan Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that the appellate authority ought to have disposed of this application only at the final stage when the appeal itself was before it for final disposal. In support of this contention, my attention was drawn to section 20 of the Act and rule 11 made under the Act. Now section 20 merely empowers the appellate authority to make further enquiry if it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller. That it will do if he finds it necessary in the disposal of the appeal. Rule 11 enjoins when an appeal under the Act is preferred, the appellate authority shall fix a date for hearing the appeal. According to sub-rule 2 of that Rule, if the appellate authority decides to make further enquiry, it may take further evidence or require such evidence to be taken by the Controller. It will thus be plain that sub- rule 2 of rule 11 does not say anything more than what section 20 (3) itself states. There is no provision of law under which it is obligatory on the part of the appellate authority o decide the question in regard to enquiry only at the time of the final disposal of the appeal. Moreover the petitioner himself filed the application for receiving the additional documentary evidence and invited the order of the appellate authority. He does not seem to have told the Court that this application could be disposed of only at the time of the final hearing of the appeal. When he has himself invited the order before the final hearing of the appeal and when there is no provision compelling the. appellate authority to consider such application only at the time when the appeal is taken for final hearing. I do not see may reason to hold that the appellate authority has committed any error in disposing of the petition. That apart, I do not see any substance in the petition itself. The affidavit on the face of it is not correct and has rightly been refused to be believed. This revision petition therefore must fail and is dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed.