HARCHARAN SINGH Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the Act') challenges the order dated 22.5.2001 passed by the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur allowing the application of the landlord-respondent for adducing additional evidence on the principles enunciated in Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code'). The principal ground granting permission to adduce evidence is that the aforementioned evidence is necessary to enable the Court to pronounce the order. For the purposes of adducing additional evidence, a report has been asked for by the Appellate Authority from the Rent Controller who has directed to record the additional evidence of the landlord-respondent, rebuttal evidence of the tenant- petitioner and also to make such further enquiry as it thinks fit. The report is required to be submitted within a period of two months. The Appellate Authority has recorded the following order while allowing the application of the landlord-respondent :

(2.) SHRI K.S. Dadwal, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code only such additional evidence could be permitted to be adduced which with due diligence and care could not have been adduced by the party. He has further argued that adducing of additional evidence could not be permitted in a case where ration card, electricity bills and other documents are sought to be tendered in evidence because all these documents were well within the knowledge of the landlord-respondent. He further submitted that it would amount to permitting the lacuna to be filled up which might have been left when the opportunity of adducing evidence was granted. He has referred to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code and has also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh v. Balkiar Singh, 1993(1) RCR(Rent) 1 (P&H) : 1983(1) P.L.R. 470.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the instant petition is devoid of merit and is thus liable to be dismissed because once the landlord-respondent has been permitted by this Court to challenge the order declining his application for adducing additional evidence then the right of the landlord-respondent cannot be further prejudiced especially when the Appellate Authority has felt the necessity of adducing additional evidence for the purposes of pronouncing the order. It is well settled that the provisions of the Code would not ipso facto apply to the statutory Tribunals which are creature of a statute. The Tribunal with the object of doing justice can always devise its own procedure. Moreover, under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act there is ample power vested in the Appellate Authority to call for a report from the Rent Controller and make a reference which would of course be in the interest of justice. The question whether the Appellate Authority possesses jurisdiction to permit adducing of evidence fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in the case of Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, 1987(1) RCR(Rent) 225 (SC) : 1987(1) SCC 204. There the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 were considered and their Lordships upheld the order of the Appellate Authority whereby adducing of additional evidence was allowed. The observations of their Lordships in this regard read as under :