BIMAL MALHOTRA Vs. GIAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short "the Code" reads as under :

(2.) It is this provision which is being pressed into service by the learned Appellate Authority and the order assailed by the petitioner. A bare perusal of the same indicates that the parties shall not be allowed to adduce additional evidence except on the conditions laid down in Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code. Additional evidence can be allowed when the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or the party seeking to produce additional evidence establishes that such evidence was not within his knowl edge and he could not produce it with due diligence in the trial Court; and lastly, the Court may require any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce the judgment.

(3.) Some of the relevant facts can well be mentioned to precipitate the controversy raised. Respondent Gian Kaur is the owner/landlady of the demised premises. The petitioner is a tenant therein. The respondent had filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner with respect to the property in question. Amongst others, one of the grounds of eviction taken up was that she bona fide require the property for her personal use. Certain witnesses were examined during the trial but she did not examine herself. The learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, had dismissed the petition for eviction. The learned Rent Controller took note of the fact that the respondent-landlady had not appeared as a witness to make a statement on oath in support of, her claim.