JUDGMENT : K.N. Goyal, J. The Petitioner is a tenant against whom an order of release of the shop under his tenancy has been passed u/s 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Against that order he preferred an appeal. During the course of the appeal he made an application for permission to file additional documentary evidence. That application was allowed on payment of Rs. 200/- as costs, and the landlord-Respondent was also allowed to file documents in rebuttal. On a later date, the Petitioner again made an application for permission to file some more documents in support of his case. This application has been rejected on the ground that the Petitioner cannot be permitted to file documents again and again. On the same day, the landlord-Respondent was also allowed opportunity to produce oral evidence for proving the documents which he had been allowed to file in rebuttal of the additional documentary evidence filed earlier by the Petitioner. It is against the rejection of the second application for permission to file additional documentary evidence that this writ petition has been filed. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The learned appellate court has not said in its order that the documents were irrelevant. The issue in the case whether the Petitioner had available with him other alternative accommodation which could serve his purpose and as such he would not suffer any substantial hardship as a result of the release of the shop in favour of the landlord. It was in connection with this issue that the documents were sought to be filed by the Petitioner. In his affidavit he had stated that the documents were not available earlier. Some were said to have been earlier misplaced, while the others were said to have been banded over to the Petitioner by a third person only shortly before the application. This allegation of the Petitioner has not been specifically dealt with by the appellate court. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has sought to support the order of the appellate court by inviting my attention to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure. A perusal of Sections 10(2), 22 and 34 of the Act and of Rule 22 of the Rules made under the Act show that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 do not in terms apply to an appeal under the Act. A perusal of Sections 10(2), 22 and 34 of the Act and of Rule 22 of the Rules made under the Act show that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 do not in terms apply to an appeal under the Act. The provisions of Section 10 apply to appeals u/s 22, mutatis mutandis Section 10(2) gives wide power to the appellate authority to take any additional evidence. This power is not qualified by the conditions laid down in Order 41 Rule 27 CPC of course the general principles laid down in Order 41 Rule 27 may be drawn upon while exercising the discretion to admit additional evidence u/s 10(2), but the provisions of Rule 27 of Order 41 are not to be literally applied. It is for good reason that the powers of appellate authority under this Act have been clothed in wider terms than the powers of the appellate court under the Code of Civil Procedure. The authorities, including an appellate authority, under the Act are quasi-judicial authorities though they are deemed to be 'civil court' for certain purposes and have been given powers of civil court in respect of certain specified' matters. Yet the fundamental distinction between a civil court and a quasi-judicial authority is not obliterated altogether. A quasi-judicial authority has generally to conform to the principles of natural justice but is not rigidly bound by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. Indeed, Section 38 of the Act specifically lays down that the provisions of the Act shall override those of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has invited my attention to a decision in Mukund Chandra Chopra v. XII Additional District Judge 1984 (2) ARC 342 in which the grievance of the Petitioner against the refusal of the appellate court to allow additional evidence was dealt with. In this context the following observations were made: In fact Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure, places certain restrictions in the matter of allowing additional evidence. In any case when the appellate court has not allowed it, this Court will not say that the discretion exercised was irregular, particularly, when before the Prescribed Authority such plea was not raised at all. Apart from that, I have looked into the application that was preferred by the tenant etc. 5. In any case when the appellate court has not allowed it, this Court will not say that the discretion exercised was irregular, particularly, when before the Prescribed Authority such plea was not raised at all. Apart from that, I have looked into the application that was preferred by the tenant etc. 5. There was thus no express ruling to the effect that Order 41 Rule 27 is applicable in terms to an appellate court under the Act. That rule was referred to in passing. 6. Of course the discretion of the appellate court in such matters is not to be lightly interfered with in writ jurisdiction. But in the instant case what we find is that the relevant documents have been shut out at a stage when the case was not ripe for arguments. Indeed some oral evidence was yet to be adduced by the Respondent and arguments would be heard only thereafter. If at this relatively early stage relevant documents were sought to be filed, the shutting out thereof from the evidence cannot be accepted as a sound exercise of judicial discretion. 7. In the result the petition is allowed and the order dated 29th October, 1984-annexure-8, to the extent it disallows the Petitioner's application for filing documents, is hereby quashed. The documentary evidence proposed to be filed shall be allowed on payment of Rs. 200/- as costs to the Respondent within two weeks. The Respondent shall also have an opportunity to file any documentary evidence in rebuttal. The patties are directed to appear before the appellate court, namely, Additional District Judge, Gonda, on 18th February, 1985, for taking further orders from that court. 8. Parties shall bear their own costs in this Court. 9. A copy of this judgment be issued to the parties' counsel on payment of necessary charges within three days.