Santosh Duggal ( 1 ) THIS application under Order 41, Rule 27cpc was filed by the appellant alongwith the second appeal against theorder passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 30/03/1991whereby the appeal filed by the respondent herein was allowed. ( 2 ) A brief resume of the facts reveals that the eviction petition wasfiled by the respondent herein under clause (b) of proviso to Section 14 (1)of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (for short the Act ). The eviction petitionwas filed against the tenant M/s. Scooter India Ltd. (appellant herein ). Itis to be noted that the alleged Sub-tenant Shri V. S. Singhal was neitherimpleaded in the eviction petition nor in the appeal filed by the landlord/respondent, before the Rent Control Tribunal. ( 3 ) THE appellant prays for grant of an opportunity to produceadditional evidence, which is in the nature of documentary evidence, speltout in details in the application itself. ( 4 ) I have heard today learned Counsel for the parties on thisapplication. I consider it expedient for the proper appreciation of theappeal that this aplication under Order 41, Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code is disposed ofindependently, as the suggestion made at the outset by Mr. Bawa, that itcould be considered during hearing of the appeal, does not seem to befeasible for the reason that in case any additional evidence is to be allowedthen it is in the interest of the parties, particularly the landlord/respondentthat that evidence is taken on record, before the appeal comes up foradmission, as it is presently at the show cause stage. ( 5 ) SHRI L. R. Gupta, Senior Counsel, has argued in respect to thedocuments sought to be proved by way of evidence. First in the series is thecopy of the letter dated 2/06/1979 whereby allegedly the terms oforiginal agreement of 1974 between the appellant M/s. Scooter India Ltd. and the occupant Shri V. S. Singhal were modified. Mr. Gupta has pointedout that the appellant as respondent in the eviction petition had examinedthe Regional Sales Manager. Shri C. M. Mehta, as RW-1 and inspite of thefact that he stated in cross-examination that the terms of the originalagreement of agency. Ex. Mr. Gupta has pointedout that the appellant as respondent in the eviction petition had examinedthe Regional Sales Manager. Shri C. M. Mehta, as RW-1 and inspite of thefact that he stated in cross-examination that the terms of the originalagreement of agency. Ex. PX-1, were changed subsequently by a letter, hewas not further asked any questions in respect thereto, much less asked toproduce the same, and that it was only the occupant, Shri V. S. Singhal, whowas questioned about this letter, but the matter was left at that when hesaid that the said letter was not traceable. The learned Counsel furtherargued that inspite of the fact that the company official appeared as awitness, he was not asked to produce the copy of that letter. The learnedrent Control Tribunal for the first time, referred to that letter, and heldthat adverse inference had to be drawn for the reason that the copy of theletter had not been produced by the company, tenant in the premises. Thelearned Counsel contended that it was settled law that in case any adverseinference is drawn against a party for non.-production of a document,regarding which that party was not called upon at any earlier stage toproduce the same, then that party is entitled to seek permission of the Courtto produce it so that the document comes on record, and the finding ofadverse inference does not remain sustainable. ( 6 ) MR. Bawa in respect to this letter pointed out that it purports tobe an office copy, but the photo copy on record does not indicate that it isan office copy nor it bears any file number or despatch number nor does itseem to be on a letter head of the appellant company, nor does it indicateunder what authority the signatory: Shri B. S. Bhargava had issued thatletter. ( 7 ) THE questions, which Mr. Bawa has raised, are questions ofappreciation of evidence about the genuineness and authenticity of thatletter, which is a matter having a bearing on merits. Presently, the issueis at a preliminary stage where the appellant should be given opportunity toproduce that letter for the short reason that the Rent Control Tribunal hasdrawn adverse inference, simply for non-production thereof. Bawa has raised, are questions ofappreciation of evidence about the genuineness and authenticity of thatletter, which is a matter having a bearing on merits. Presently, the issueis at a preliminary stage where the appellant should be given opportunity toproduce that letter for the short reason that the Rent Control Tribunal hasdrawn adverse inference, simply for non-production thereof. ( 8 ) I am satisfied that in view of this finding of the Rent Controltribunal on this aspect of the matter, the appellant deserves to be allowedone opportunity to produce office copy of the letter dated 2/06/1979,and it shall be for them to produce all the supporting evidence to prove theauthenticity of this letter as well as the authority of the signatory as alsothe factum that it was actually issued to Shri V. S. Singhal by way ofmodification or novation of the original agency agreement. ( 9 ) THE next document, which the appellant seeks to produce onrecord, is the sales-tax registration certificate of Delhi Sales-tax Department,whereby they want to show that the sales-tax registration of the appellantcompany is at the address of the tenancy premises. The plea is that thissales-tax registration is subsisting upto date. Mr. Bawa has, however, contended that this would be meaningless forthe reason that it has already come in evidence that the appellant companycharges sales-tax from Shri V. S. Singhal at the time the stocks are transferredto him for sale, and the sales-tax in Delhi is collected by Shri Singhal on thescooters sold by him, and duly shown in the cash memos issued by him. Mr. Gupta has, however, clarified that the sales-tax registration certificate isin respect to "ganesh fans" which the appellant company is manufacturingin their factory at 64, Najafgarh Road, Delhi, and stocked and sold fromthe tenancy premises. This is an official document, and it shall be for theappellant to prove the sales-tax registration certificate by examining theofficial of the Sales-tax Department so that the respondent has ampleopportunity to cross-examine, to be satisfied about the date of issue,subsistency or the terms of the said certificate or even the assessment order. ( 10 ) THE next lot of documents are the stock transfer documentspertaining to ganese fans which, according to appellant, are stocked in thetenancy premises at R-10, Green Park, New Delhi, and sent to differentconsignees, or appellant s own out-station outlets. Here again, the mainobjection by Mr. ( 10 ) THE next lot of documents are the stock transfer documentspertaining to ganese fans which, according to appellant, are stocked in thetenancy premises at R-10, Green Park, New Delhi, and sent to differentconsignees, or appellant s own out-station outlets. Here again, the mainobjection by Mr. Bawa is that of proof, and the authenticity of the stocktransfer documents, ft is to be noted that it will be in the interest of theappellant to prove by satisfactory evidence the authenticity of the stocktransfers, with reference to the stock transfer documents, namely, the stockregister and connected transfer documents, including goods receipts and railreceipts etc. ( 11 ) ANOTHER set of documents, which the appellant seeks to place onrecord by way of additional evidence are the gate passes showing clearanceof ganesh fans manufactured by them, at the factory gate, and being sentfor stocking to the tenancy premises. Some of these excise duty clearancegate passes have been produced which pertain to the years 1979, 1982 and1988. These excise duty clearance gate passes are part of the official record,and there can be no doubt about their authenticity, provided some official ofthe Excise Department is summoned with the official record to prove theauthenticity of these, gate passes, and it is further directed that the appellantshall produce and prove the gate passes spread over the period immediatelybefore the filing of the eviction petition upto date-say two or three for everyyear. ( 12 ) IT is to be noted that the plea about stocking of ganesh fans inthe tenancy premises is there even in the written statement and reiterated inevidence v. ( 13 ) IN view of the above, and keeping in view the fact that theappellant is itself a Government of India undertaking, and is presumed tomaintain their records in regular and due course, and in proper manner, andfurther that the additional evidence which is sought to be produced entirelyconsists of documentary record. I think it a fit case to allow the applicationas the aforesaid evidence appears to be relevant and material for properappreciationof the issue to be determined, but in view of the fact that theeviction petition was filed in the year 1980, it is thought expedient in theends of justice that a time bound direction is given to the appellant as acondition of permission for producing additional evidence, and it shall belor the appellant to produce the entire evidence within tlie time frame fixedby this Court. ( 14 ) IT is further considered expedient that this evidence is got recordedby remiting the matter to the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, who shallrecord the evidence produced by the appellant in terms of this order, andalso the evidence, if any produced in rebuttal, by the respondent herein, whois petitioner in the main evidence petition, and then transmit the record ofthe case alongwith the additional evidence recorded, and his report, to thiscourt for the purposes of disposal of the appeal. ( 15 ) IT is, therefore, directed that the lower Court records be sent backimmediately to the concerned Additional Rent Controller with a copy of thisorder, to be placed before the Additional Rent Controller concerned on16-3-1993, and since both the parties are today represented by Counsel, itis directed that they shall appear before the said Additional Rent Controlleron the date fixed, namely, 16-3-1993, either personally or through Counsel,to take further date for the evidence. ( 16 ) THE Additional Rent Controller shall ensure that the appellantproduces and closes evidence within three months of the date when the fileis put up before him, and shall, in the first instance, give about four to fiveweeks date to the appellant so that evidence can be summoned andthereafter given two more opportunities for producing evidence but it willin no case go beyond three months. ( 17 ) THE appellant shall file copies of all the documents of whateverthey intend to produce and prove, by way of additional evidence, on the firstdate before the Additional Rent Controller, namely, 16-3-1993, together withan index, with a copy direct to learned Counsel for the respondent. Therespondent shall be given opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal, if anysought by them, and then shall be given two months for this purpose, andtwo to three opportunities would also be provided to the respondent tosummon official witnesses, if any. Therespondent shall be given opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal, if anysought by them, and then shall be given two months for this purpose, andtwo to three opportunities would also be provided to the respondent tosummon official witnesses, if any. ( 18 ) AT this stage Shri Gupta says that the summer vacation for thecivil Court this year shall commence after 29th May i. e. before the expiryof three months time fixed by this Court. In case any exigency of thesituation, such as non-service of the official witnesses, requires, then thethree months, time, because of the intervening summer vacation shall betreated to extend upto 5/07/1993 for the appellant to close theirevidence. The respondent shall get two months time from the date theappellant closes evidence, and the Additional Rent Controller shall transmit therecord with additional evidence and his report, within a month of partiesclosing their evidence. ( 19 ) THE appeal be listed in this Court on 14/10/1993 forreport and further directions. ( 20 ) CM 746 of 1991 is allowed in the aforesaid terms with costs. Counsel s fee. Rs. 2000. 00.