Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1459 (ALL)

PUSHPRAJ v. BALA RASTOGI

2009-04-16

PRAKASH KRISHNA

body2009
JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.-Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.2.2009 passed by the Appellate Court in Appeal No. 164 of 2006 whereby and where under it has rejected the application filed by the petitioner to bring two documents namely certified copy of release order dated 20.7.2008 and few photographs of the shop to show that need of the landlord stands satisfied, has been rejected. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the said certified copy of the order came into existence during the pendency of the appeal. He submits that Appellate Court can taken into account the subsequent events. The further submission is that if the said plea of the tenant finds favour with the Appellate Court, the controversy involved with regard to the bona fide need of the respondent-landlord would be set at rest. He further submits that if these two documents are taken on record, no other evidence, oral or documentary would be required to be adduced. 4. Considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the tenant wants to file a certified copy of the order dated 20.7.2008, which came into existence during the pendency of the appeal, and the photographs of the said released shop, this Court is of the view that these documents may be taken on record, being subsequent events. However, by way of clarification, it is provided that the petitioner-tenant will not be entitled to adduce any other evidence. The respondent-landlord may file evidence in rebuttal within a period)f two weeks. It has been informed that 20.4.2009 is the next date fixed in the appeal. The hearing of the appeal shall be adjourned for a period of two weeks to enable the landlord to file the evidence in rebuttal and shall be heard and disposed of finally in the month of May, 2009 itself, if possible. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also undertakes that the petitioner will not seek any adjournment. The Court shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment, if the petitioner seeks any adjournment, the cost not less than 1000/- be imposed for each adjournment.