JUDGMENT Mrs. POONAM SRIVASTAV, J.--Heard Sri K.M. Garg, learned Counsel for the tenant/petitioner and Sri R.K. Mishra and Sri Neeraj Agrawal, Counsel for the respondent. 2. This is tenant's writ petition filed challenging the order dated 22.1.2009 whereby the Revisional Court has admitted additional evidence. 3. Facts giving rise to the dispute is that S.C.C. Suit No. 51 of 1996 was filed on 20.5.1996 on the ground of arrears of rent against the petitioner and also claiming damages for use and occupation. Contention of the plaintiff/landlord is that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable in respect of the accommodation in question, petitioner has committed default in payment of rent and respondent society is running primary school and junior high school in the name and style of Chameli Devi Kanya Vidya Mandir. A written statement was filed by tenant/petitioner on 21.7.1997 stating that he has not committed default in payment of rent and also provision of Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable and the society is not running school. 4. Sri K.M. Garg, has submitted that on 17.7.1998 one Munna Lal Bansal claims himself to be Secretary of the Society and was examined as P.W. 1. He submitted that photostat copy of original registration certificate of the society as well as original recognition certificate of the said school is with him. In spite of it, the origmal was not filed. It is also contended that original lease deed was also not brought on record. The Judge, Small Cause Court, Bulandshahar, dismissed the suit vide judgment and order dated 23.4.2007 holding that provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable in the instant case and there was no default on the part of petitioner. This conclusion was arrived at on account of the reason that only photostat copies purporting as registration of the society and recognition of the school were filed and only the photostat copies were not admissible in evidence. 5. The landlord/respondent preferred S.C.C. Revision No. 16 of 2007 in the Court of the District Judge, Bulandshahar on 14.5.2007. An application for admitting additional evidence i.e., original registration and recognition certificate as well as original lease deed, was moved before the Revisional Court on 14.11.2008. This application was objected by petitioner by filing an objection on 19.11.2008. The Court below allowed additional evidence to be taken on record vide order dated 22.1.2009. 6. An application for admitting additional evidence i.e., original registration and recognition certificate as well as original lease deed, was moved before the Revisional Court on 14.11.2008. This application was objected by petitioner by filing an objection on 19.11.2008. The Court below allowed additional evidence to be taken on record vide order dated 22.1.2009. 6. Challenge of the Counsel for petitioner to this additional documents admitting in evidence in revision are manifolds, one that these documents have been brought on record after 12 years of institution of suit and more than one year after filing of revision. Next ground of challenge is that this is only to fill up lacuna and other ground is that reason given in the application for adducing evidence at the Revisional Court stage is not one that is covered within any of clauses of Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. 7. The Counsel for respondent has placed the application whereby additional documents were sought to be adduced in evidence in support of the aforesaid conclusion. While replying arguments of the Counsel for petitioner, it is contended that this was an application under section 151, C.P.C. In fact, photostat copies were filed and original copies were with the witness. He had unequivocally stated in the Court that he has brought origiral documents but he is not able to file it for the reason that reo istration certificate as well as recognition certificate are to be necessarily maintained in record of the institution and kept in office of the school, since this was the sole ground for rejection the suit, therefore, original copies are also brought on record. 8. In fact. this is not a fact in support of which documents were filed in the Revisional Court for the first time. This plea was raised before the Trial Court and photostat copies were filed in evidence. It was dearly stated before the Court that original documents are with witness but since he expressed the necessity for not filing it, which was not objected by the Court, it was not kept on record. On one hand the Trial Court did not require the witness to bring it on record and on the other hand suit was dismissed solely on account of this reason. 9. On one hand the Trial Court did not require the witness to bring it on record and on the other hand suit was dismissed solely on account of this reason. 9. Next argument is that documents brought on record before the Revisional Court are not in fact additional evidence, photostat copies were already on record but original was filed because the Court was not prepared to, read the said documents in evidence, therefore, an application filed was one under section 151, C.P.C. which was also supported by an affidavit. 10. The Counsel for respondent while assailing the impugned judgments substantiated his arguments from findings recorded in the impugned judgments and, therefore, contention of the Counsel for respondent is that objection of petitioner's Counsel are liable to be rejected. 11. Sri K.M. Cargo has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court; M/s. Eastern Equipment and Sales Ltd. v. I.N.G. Yash Kumar Khanna,1 wherein the Apex Court was of the view that while deciding an appeal in which an application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. was filed, the Appellate Court ought to have taken application for acceptance of additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. along with appeal. The said case was one in which an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 was rejected and upheld by the High Court. However a direction was given by the Apex Court to the Lower Appellate Court that application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. shall be taken up while deciding the appeal on merits within three months from the date of supply of order of the Apex Court. 1. AIR 2008 SC page 2360. 12. Similar view was also taken by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan v. T.N. Sahani and others2 and State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava.3 In this case, the Apex Court ruled that it is well settled that additional evidence should not be permitted at the appellate stage in order to enable one of the parties to fill up lacuna at the appropriate stage. The Apex Court declined to permit additional evidence to be placed in appeal when there was sufficient opportunity for the appellant to place relevant matters before the High Court. 2. 2001 (92) RD 1961 (SC). 3. AIR 1957 SC page 912. 13. The Apex Court in the case of K.R. Mohan Reddy v. M/s. Net Work Inc. The Apex Court declined to permit additional evidence to be placed in appeal when there was sufficient opportunity for the appellant to place relevant matters before the High Court. 2. 2001 (92) RD 1961 (SC). 3. AIR 1957 SC page 912. 13. The Apex Court in the case of K.R. Mohan Reddy v. M/s. Net Work Inc. Rep. Tr. M.D.,4 in paragraph No. 18 held that: 4. AIR 2008 SC page 579. "18. It is now a trite law that the conditions precedent for application of Clause (aa) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order XLI is different from that of Clause (b). In the event the former is to be applied, it would be for the applicant to show that the ingredients or conditions precedent mentioned therein are satisfied. On the other hand Clause (b) to sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order XLI of C.P.C. is to be taken recourse to, the Appellate Court was bound to consider the entire evidences on record and come to an independent finding for arriving at a just decision; adduction of additional evidence as has been prayed by the appellant was necessary". 14. The Apex Court in the case of Basayya I. Mathad v. Rudrayya S. Mathad and others,5 in paragraph No. 12 held that: 5. (2008) 3 SCC 120 =2008 (71) ALR 178 (SC)=2008 (104) RD 604=2008 (64) AIC 181. "12. It is clear that parties to the lis are not entitled to produce additional evidence as of course or routine but must satisfy the conditions stated in sub-clauses (a) and (aa). Admittedly, such recourse has not been resorted to either by the party concerned or were those principles adhered to by the High Court. Para 3 of his order shows that the learned Judge verified the document produced on his direction without complying with the mandate as provided under Rule 27 of Order XLI. Hence, we are of the view that the finding of the learned Judge based on a document produced at the time of argument dehors Rule 27 referred above cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. In such circumstances, his ultimate conclusion treating the suit property as a family property partible among the members of the family is also liable to be set aside. In such circumstances, his ultimate conclusion treating the suit property as a family property partible among the members of the family is also liable to be set aside. In fact, sub-Clause (2) of Rule 27 mandates that wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, it shall record the reason for its admission. It is needless to mention that the High Court neither followed those conditions for production of additional evidence nor recorded the reason for basing reliance on the same". 15. Learned Counsel for the respondent h.as placed reliance on a decision of Patna High Court; Nagina Singh v. Ramjanam Singh.1 Extract of the said decision is quoted herein below: 1. AIR 1928 Patna page 64. "The learned District Judge in dealing with this matter took into evidence another certified copy of that deposition which differed from the copy that had been produced by the plaintiff at the trial and he also referred to the original record of the case and found that the copy produced by the plaintiff was incorrect and that what Chander Singh had actually said was that Ramadhin was a cousin of the father of Ramrachya". 16. I have taken into consideration arguments advnced by the Counsel for respective parties as well as decision relied upon by them. It is true that evidence at revisional stage is not to be accepted as a matter of course. In fact, there is no specific provision in the Code for accepting additiorlal evidence in revision or under Provincial Small Causes Court Act to do so but procedure provided in Code of Civil Procedure is followed in a suit before the Judge Small Causes and, therefore, only provision for filing additional evidence at the appellate stage or in the instant case at revisional stage is only under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. Provincial Small Causes Court Act provides for S.C.C. Revision under section 25 of the said Act against judgment given by the Judge Small Cause Court and procedure in appeal is adopted in revision as well. 17. I do not agree with submission of Sri K.M. Garg that original documents accepted in evidence are only to fill up lacuna and it was brought for the first time before the Revisional Court. In fact, photostat copies were filed in evidence. 17. I do not agree with submission of Sri K.M. Garg that original documents accepted in evidence are only to fill up lacuna and it was brought for the first time before the Revisional Court. In fact, photostat copies were filed in evidence. Witness who had come in witness box, unequivocally admitted that original documents/were with him but he is not filing it only on account of the reason they are necessarily to be kept in office of the institution. Besides, assertion that lease deed was not brought on record, accommodation in question belongs to Mahakali Dharm Trust and Vyas Siksha Prasar Samiti and it was taken on lease from Mahakali Dharm Trust. It has nowhere been denied by the petitioner during S.C.C. suit that Vyas Siksha Prasar Samiti was not lessee of Mahakali Dharm Trust. This fact was clearly admitted that Vyas Siksha Prashar Samiti is landlord and tenant/petitioner regularly paid rent. This was never challenged before the Court below. Since it was never challenged, there was no need to file lease deed. However, since it is admission by tenant accepting the Vyas Siksha Prasar Samiti to be landlord to whom rent was being paid and the fact that society was a registered society and also recognized, those documents were brought on record to substantiate plaint and replication as well as specific reasons for not filing original documents also brought to the notice of the Court, who did not raise any objection at any point of time. In fact, landlord-respondent did not file an application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. but original documents were brought on record by means of an application under section 151, C.P.C. 18. The Judge Small Cause has himself recorded that the petitioner paid rent to Vyas Siksha Prasar Samiti. The suit was filed by Vyas Siksha Prasar Samiti. Issue No. 1 whether the plaintiff is landlord or not, was decided in favour of plaintiff and he was held to be landlord. Therefore, this objection cannot be raised in this writ petition where acceptance of original documents on record is only under challenge. 19. I cannot lose sight of the fact that the Trial Court recorded a definite finding that tenant/petitioner is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.3.1996. Issue No. 3 was decided against plaintiff only because original documents were not kept on record. 19. I cannot lose sight of the fact that the Trial Court recorded a definite finding that tenant/petitioner is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.3.1996. Issue No. 3 was decided against plaintiff only because original documents were not kept on record. On perusal of the judgment of the Judge Small Cause Court, it transpires that specific finding has been recorded that witness has stated before the Court that original documents were in his possession at the time of recording his statement and it was not filed for the reason spelled out by witness. No objection was raised by either defendant or Court. In the circumstances, if original documents were brought on record, no additional facts are being pleaded. Argument regarding condition that Order XLI, Rule 27 not being fulfilled is also without any substance since it is not an additional evidence. Evidences in the shape of photostat copies are already on record but they were not considered. Besides, Revisional Court has recorded specific reasons for accepting the documents on record. I do not find it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Argument that these documents were brought on record to fill up lacuna is also not acceptable and, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere and quash the impugned judgment and order. However, it will be open for the tenant/petitioner to advance his argument at the relevant time before the Revisional Court. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition Dismissed.