JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra, Actg. C. J.—This is a revision under section 24 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The order under challenge was passed by the Rent Controller (IV), Simla, on May 11, 1988. By it, the learned Rent Controller rejected the prayer of the landlords-applicants for production of certain documents. It was on account of an objection raised by the tenants-respondents. 2. The documents which the landlords wanted to produce were the building plan submitted to the Municipal Corporation and some statements of bank account showing the capability of the landlords to incur the expenses necessary for reconstruction of the building, after demolition of the existing building. 3. The first witness of the landlords was under examination. At that stage, the documents aforesaid were sought to be filed. What was urged on behalf of the tenants was that the documents should have been produced alongwith the petition made before the Rent Controller and that they could not be permitted to be filed at a later stage, more so, because they would have caused prejudice to the tenants. The Rent Controller was impressed by the objection. She took the view that unless the practice of subsequent production of basic documents on the record was discouraged grave injustice would be caused to the adverse party who, in that event, would absolutely be incapacitated to defend its case or to lead any evidence to counter such subsequent production. She also said that the cardinal principle of law is that no evidence could be led beyond pleadings. 4. The observations aforesaid made by the learned Rent Controller may, in suitable cases, be taken recourse to. In the facts of the present case, however, they are not relevant. It is true that these documents were not produced alongwith the petition moved by the landlord but it is equally true that these documents were not sought to be produced in the case at a very late stage of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, but, almost at its threshold. 5. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondents raised an objection that the present petition in revision was not maintainable. The landlords could have gone in appeal against the order under challenge. Since, no appeal was filed, it was urged that the present revision was not maintain able. 5. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondents raised an objection that the present petition in revision was not maintainable. The landlords could have gone in appeal against the order under challenge. Since, no appeal was filed, it was urged that the present revision was not maintain able. Support was sought for this submission from a decision of this Court in Som Nath v. Sewa Ram, ILR 1985 HP 133. 6. In Som Nath, a learned single Judge took the view that the order under challenge before him, in a revision, could have been assailable in an appeal for which limitation had already expired. Since no appeal had been filed, the applicant before the learned Judge could not be allowed to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Court under section 115, C. P. C. In Som Nath the order under challenge before this Court was one of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller against the tenant. Such an order, undoubt edly, could be assailed in an appeal, 7. Under section 24 (1), clause (a) of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, the State Government is authorised to confer on such officers and authorities, as it thinks fit, the powers of the appellate authority, in such area or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order. It has been stated at the bar that the Notification attributable to section 24 (1), which is under operation, is the one which was initially issued in exercise of the powers under section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Clause (4) of the Notification says that the powers of the appellate authority was to be exercised by all District and Sessions Judges with regard to the orders made by the Rent Controllers under sections 4, 10,12 and 13 of the said Act, 8. It is not in dispute that the order, which is under challenge in the present revision, is not of the nature contemplated by the aforesaid pro visions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 9. Since the present order could not be assailed by the applicants- landlords in an appeal, as was the case before this Court in Som Nath, the authority in Som Nath is of no avail to the respondents. 10. 9. Since the present order could not be assailed by the applicants- landlords in an appeal, as was the case before this Court in Som Nath, the authority in Som Nath is of no avail to the respondents. 10. As noticed earlier, the circumstances of the instant case were such in which the factors which impressed the Rent Control could not legitimately have been taken into account by her for coming to the conclusion that landlords were not entitled to produce the documents at the stage at which they were sought to be produced. The order of the Rent Controller deserves to be and is set aside. 11. The Rent Controller will permit the applicants-landlords to file the documents in question and proceed in the matter thereafter. The per mission may be made subject to payment of such costs by the landlords which, in the opinion of the Rent Controller, may be just and proper. The revision shall stand disposed of finally in the aforesaid terms. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs of this Court. Order accordingly.