BRIJ BHUSHAN Vs. MAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated February 4, 1987, passed by the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra [exercising the power of Appellate Authority under section 15(2) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. An application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to lead additional evidence during the pendency of the appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner had sought ejectment of the tenant-respondent inter alia on the ground that he wants to occupy the premises in dispute and sought to establish his personal necessity. In the course of evidence before the learned Rent Controller he produced his son Krishan Kumar AW 4 who stated that he is employed in Haryana State Electricity Board and is posted at Rohtak. His children are also residing and studying at Rohtak. He wanted to shift alongwith his children to Kaithal where the property in dispute is situated. The learned Rent Controller disbelieved his version on the ground that no cause for his shifting from Rohtak to Kaithal has been established.

(3.) During the pendency of the appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, the instant application was moved. What is sought to be adduced by way of additional evidence are the certificate of the Headmaster of the school where three daughters and a son of Krishan Kumar are studying besides detailed marks certificate of one of his daughters, ration card showing his three daughters and one son residing at Rohtak and he also wanted to produce Mange Ram in whose house AW 4 is residing Rohtak.