VIVEK ARORA Vs. SUNDER MANDIR BASODA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has filed this second appeal under Section 32 of the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961 against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.16 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Ganj Basoda, Distt. Vidisha in Civil Appeal No.118- A/2016 preferred against the order dated 31.8.2012 passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer cum Rent Controlling Authority, Ganj Basoda, Distt. Vidisha, in Case No.2A90/06-07 by which the ADJ has dismissed the appeal filed under Section 31 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and has confirmed the order passed by the RCA dated 31.8.12.

(2.) It is appellant's contention that appellant was tenant of Mayadevi and not of Sunder Mandir. It is also submitted that there is no evidence in regard to rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- as has been accepted by the Courts below and further it is submitted that appellant had filed applications under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC and that have not been considered properly and impugned order has been passed in a very cryptic and cursory manner.

(3.) As far as application filed by the appellant on 2.11.2012 under Order 41, Rule 27 read with section 151 CPC to bring copy of the register from Nagar Palika Basoda on record as was obtained under RTI is concerned, the said document bears date of 6.10.12. There is no mention of the date on which application was made to obtain such document but receipt dated 19.10.12 has been enclosed. This document gives details of the property tax for the year 2012-13, but the appellant failed to discharge the burden that why such document could not be obtained and filed earlier. Thereafter, the appellant filed another application on 10.9.2015 before the Court of 2nd ADJ, Basoda, under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC mentioning that appellant is producing copy of tax demand notice issued by Nagar Palika Parishad Basoda and copy of the written statement filed before the Civil Judge, Class II, Basoda. In para 2, it is mentioned that such documents could not be filed earlier. In para 3, it is mentioned that the tax demand notice is in original, and therefore, a prayer was made to take such documents on record. No requirements of Order 41, Rule 27 CPC have been mentioned as to why these documents could not be filed earlier and why the appellant was filing such documents at the stage of first appeal under the provisions of Section 31 of the MP Accommodation Control Act. A bare perusal of the documents reveal that demand notice is in regard to property tax for the year 2005-06 and was issued on 28.1.2006. Similarly, the written statement which was filed by the appellant before the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Basoda, was filed on 25.10.10 as can be seen from the endorsement on the written statement, therefore, onus was on the appellant to show that why such documents could not be filed earlier.