KULBHUSHAN KUMAR Vs. AMRIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER had filed the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of the respondents from the premises in question on the ground of arrears of rent, material impairment and personal necessity. The ejectment petition was allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 29.1.2009 on the ground that the premises in question had been materially impaired and that the shop in question was required by the landlord for his own use and occupation. Aggrieved against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short) for permission to lead an additional evidence.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appellate authority, while disposing of the appeal, had failed to decide the application moved by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. Hence, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court Jatinder Singh and another v. Mehar Singh and others : 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 253 : 2009 (17) SCC 465 wherein it has been held as under: -

(3.) SINCE in the present case, the appellate authority had failed to decide the application moved by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., while deciding the appeal, this petition is liable to be allowed and a direction is liable to be issued to the appellate authority to decide the appeal along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 2.5.2012 passed by the appellate authority is set aside. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal along with the application for additional evidence moved by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. The appellate authority is also directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.