(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 24(5) of the H.P.Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 has been filed against the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 59-S/14 of 2003 decided on 17.3.2006 whereby he has affirmed the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller (I), Shimla in Case No.50/2 of 2000 dated 1.8.2006.
(2.) FOR the reasons stated herein-below, it is not necessary to enter into the facts of the case and the matter can be decided on a short question raised before me.
(3.) ON the other hand Mr. Vinay Kuthiala has contended that the applications under Order 26 rule 9 CPC and 41 rule 27 CPC filed were virtually identical and the application for leading additional evidence is deemed to have been dismissed vide order dated 13.3.2006.