RAVI CHAND MANGLA AND ORS. Vs. LAKSHMI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's petition whose application for additional evidence filed before the appellate authority hag been dismissed.

(2.) The landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant inter-alia on the ground that the tenant has ceased to occupy the shop in dispute for the continuous period of more than 6 years. However, the Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application. In appeal filed by the landlord, an applicat on was made to allow him to lead additional evidence, to prove that there was an electric connection in the shop but the meter was not giving any consumption since January, 1981 and since the premises were found locked, the connection was disconnected on 9.4 1981 and was got restored subsequently. The learned appellate authority dismissed the said application on the ground that the conditions of clause (b) and (c) of Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code, are not fulfilled.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that the application was not to be considered under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure Section 15, subsection (4) of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 itself provides that the appellate authority shall decide the appeal after ending for the records of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being beard and if necessary after making such further enquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller. That being so, the evidence sought to be produced on the petitioner's evidence was of documentary Mature and was most material for determining the real controversy between the parties.