GIAN CHAND Vs. PARHALAD RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this revision petition are that the present petitioner Gian Chand had filed an application for ejectment of the respondents from a shop situated in Panipat. One of the grounds for ejectment was that the original tenant had sublet the premises to another person. Before the Rent Controller the parties led evidence to the effect that the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant were doing partnership business in the premises in dispute. They had produced a partnership deed and some bills. The learned Rent Controller held that sub-tenancy was proved. The story of partnership was held not probable while the bills were held to have been fabricated. However, while discarding the above documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller had also remarked that from the non-production of the account of profit and loss, copies of returns of income tax and sales tax and the bank opening account on adverse inference could be drawn against the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant. He accordingly ordered ejectment of the tenant. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal he filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence in which he made reference to the above observation about the adverse inference having been drawn by the Rent Controller and further pleaded that he being a layman did not know the intricacy of law and, therefore, he could not produce the documents earlier and he be permitted to produce the documents mentioned in the application. Those arguments are practically the same about the non-production of which the learned Rent Controller had commented adversely. After noting various authorities the learned Appellate Authority allowed the tenant to lead additional evidence. The landlord has filed this revision petition against that order.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Authority had allowed the tenant to lead additional evidence merely on the ground that he had alleged in the application that he was a layman and was unaware of the intricacy of law and that is not sufficient ground for granting permission to lead additional evidence. He has relied upon Mohd. Yousuf v. nawabudin, 2001(2) R.C.R. 38 and Inder Sain Gupta v. Shri Sushil Kumar and others, 1983(1) R.C.R. 333, Bhoop Singh v. Amar Nath Jain, 1983(2) R.C.R. 248 and some other authorities. The sum total of the principles laid down in the rulings is that a party should not be allowed to lead additional evidence either at the trial stage or during the appeal at his will and that additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna. It is settled principle that if there is sufficient cause then a party can be allowed to lead additional evidence. As noticed earlier in the application the tenant had made reference to the observation made by the learned Rent Controller about non-production of the above documents and on account of which adverse inference has been drawn against him. Here it will be relevant to quote Anantam Veeraju and others v. Valluri Venkayya alias Venkamma, (died) and another, A.I.R. 1960 Andhra Pardesh 222 wherein it was remarked :-

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the learned Appellate Authority should have heard the appeal on merits and only then it should have come to the opinion whether it was able to pronounce the judgment satisfactorily on the basis of the material before it or not. Such step is relevant when the Court requires a document. However, in the present case the party wants to produce the evidence on the ground that there is substantial cause for permitting it to produce additional evidence. This application could not have been decided at the time of final arguments. If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted then it means that Appellate Authority after hearing the arguments and going through the material before it should first form an opinion if the partnership deed and the bills produced by the tenant are fabricated or not. Law does not contemplate that after forming such an opinion, only then the Appellate Court should permit additional evidence.