DIAL CHAND Vs. ANANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dial Chand petitioner (plaintiff before the trial Court) has filed the instant revision petition against the order dated 20th January, 1994, vide which an application under Order 18 Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Pro cedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') filed by the respondent Anant Ram (defendant before the trial Court) for additional evidence has been allowed by the learned trial Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that respondent, who is the landlord filed an ejectment application against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent under the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. In that ejectment application, he claimed the rent of the demised premises at the rate of Rs.450/- per month. The petitioner-tenant tendered the arrears of rent at the aforesaid rate under protest by claiming the rate of rent of the demised premises to be only Rs.150/- per month. After tender of the rent on the first date of hearing, the respondent-landlord did not press the said ejectment petition and the same was dismissed.

(3.) Subsequently, the petitioner filed suit for recovery of the alleged excess rent paid by him in the aforesaid ejectment petition on the allegation that the rate of rent of the demised premises was only Rs.150/- per month, whereas the respondent-landlord has illegally charged the arrears of rent from him at the rate of Rs.450/- per month. In the suit, the petitioner has proved on record the Income Tax return of the respondent-landlord for the year 1984-85 as Ex.PW3/A, in which he has shown the income from rent as Rs. 1,800/- per annum. Thereafter, the respondent-landlord led his evidence and the same was concluded and closed on 7th September, 1993. After that, on 13th September, 1993, he filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17A of the Code for permission to lead additional evidence to prove the detail of the Income Tax return Ex.PW3/A to show that the amount of Rs. 1,800/- reflected in the said Income Tax return does not pertain to the shop in question. For that purpose, he wanted to examine the Record Keeper of the In-come Tax Office, Muktsar with records to prove and explain that the amount shown in the income Tax return Ex.PW3/A pertain to some different premises. The said application filed by the respondent has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order. The learned Court, while allowing the aforesaid application has observed that though the proposed additional evidence was within the knowledge of the respondent yet he could not produce the same after due diligence because the witness produced by him was not knowing English. The learned trial Court has also observed that the proposed additional evidence is material and essential for the proper and effective determination of the controversy as in the aforesaid Income Tax return Ex.PW3/A, only the amount of rent has been mentioned but no detail of the premises has been given to connect the said amount with the shop in question.