Judgment Alok Singh, J. 1. Tenant has invoked revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the judgment dated 14.12.1999 passed by learned Rent Controller, Bhiwani, as well as, judgment dated 27.08.2003 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Bhiwani, whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord-respondent herein was allowed and tenant-revisionist herein was directed to be evicted from the demised property (shop). 2. The brief facts of the present case, inter-alia, are that respondent - landlord herein has filed eviction petition against the tenant-revisionist herein saying earlier owner - landlord of the property in question was his maternal grandmother Smt. Dhan Kaur, who has given the ownership of the property in question to the landlord being only surviving legal heir and ultimately, Dhan Kaur suffered a decree also in favour of the landlord on 17.12.1994. It is also contended by the landlord that tenant - revisionist has failed to pay rent to the landlord w.e.f. 1.10.1995 despite many requests, hence, tenant - revisionist is liable to be ejected from the demised premises. 3. Tenant - revisionist herein contested the eviction petition by way of filing written statement and contended therein that Sheonath (maternal grand father of the respondent herein) was the owner of the property in dispute; Sheonath was married twice; with his first wife, Mange Ram was born and with his second wife, Santra Devi was born and he has given property in dispute to his daughter Santra Devi (mother of the respondent herein) and another property was given to his son Mange Ram; Santra Devi has sold the property in question vide sale deed dated 25.08.1986 in favour of the wife of the tenant - revisionist, hence, after the sale deed dated 25.08.1986, landlady is wife of the tenant- revisionist herein and there is no relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. 4. Learned Rent Controller vide judgment dated 14.12.1999 has allowed the eviction petition. Learned Rent Controller in the impugned judgment has held that respondent herein is the owner and landlord and there is a relationship of lessor and lessee between the parties and tenant - revisionist has failed to pay the rent w.e.f. 01.10.1995 and has not tendered any rent, rather, denied the relationship of lessor-lessee between the parties, hence, is liable to be evicted. 5. 5. Tenant - revisionist herein has preferred an appeal which too was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.08.2003 confirming the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller. 6. Feeling aggrieved from both the judgments, tenant - revisionist has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(6) of the Act. With the Memo of Revision, revisionist has also moved an application under Section 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 C.P.C. along with Photostat copy of gift deed dated 27.07.1970 allegedly executed by Smt. Dhan Kaur in favour of Smt. Santra. 7. Mr. Mani Ram Verma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner - tenant, argued that case of the revisionist from the very beginning is that wife of the revisionist has purchased the property from Smt. Santra, mother of the respondent, however, in both the Courts below, revisionist could not prove as to how Santra was owner of the property to prove the title of Smt. Santra. Gift deed must be accepted as additional evidence on the record so that it can be proved that Dhan Kaur has transferred the title in favour of Smt. Santra vide registered Gift deed dated 27.07.1970. Mr. Mani Ram Verma has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the matter of Kirpal Singh v. Smt. Tarowati and others, 2010(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 307, Ashok Kumar v. Aman Kumar and others, 2010(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 937 and on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Shyam Gopal Bindal & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer & Ann, 2010 AIR (SC) 690. Mr. Verma further argued that if gift deed is taken on record then spine of the case that earlier Dhan Kaur was the owner and from Dhan Kaur vide gift deed Smt. Santra, mother of the respondent, become owner and Smt. Santra has executed sale deed in favour of the wife of the tenant-revisionist shall stand proved and case of the respondent that he has derived title from Smt. Dhan Kaur in the year 1994 after the registered gift deed shall stand disproved. 8. Mr. Rajmohan Singh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that revisionist has not placed on record either original gift deed or certified copy of the registered gift deed and has placed on record Photostat copy of the gift deed which is not admissible in evidence. According to Mr. 8. Mr. Rajmohan Singh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that revisionist has not placed on record either original gift deed or certified copy of the registered gift deed and has placed on record Photostat copy of the gift deed which is not admissible in evidence. According to Mr. Singh, any evidence contrary to the pleading should not be accepted during the revision. Mr. Singh further contended that in the Trial Court, as well as, before the First Appellate Court, the case of the revisionist was that Sheonath was the owner of the property in dispute and Sheonath had married twice and was having one son Mange Ram from one wife and daughter Santra from another wife, hence, by way of family arrangement, he has given one property to Mange Ram and present property to Smt. Santra. In the pleadings and evidence before both the Courts below, Santra was said to have derived title from her father Sh. Sheonath. By way of alleged gift deed, Santra is alleged to have derived title from her mother Dhan Kaur. Both are contradictory stands, hence, revisionist cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence, contrary to the pleadings and evidence already produced before the Courts below. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 10. The revisionist - tenant has taken specific case before the learned Rent Controller that Sheonath was the original owner of the property in question and Sheonath in his life time by way of family settlement has given property in dispute to his daughter Santra and from Santra property in dispute has been purchased by the wife of the revisionist vide sale deed dated 25.08.1986. It was further stated before the Rent Controller, as well as before the First Appellate Court that Dhan Kaur never inherited any property from her husband Sheonath and Sheonath has during his life time by way of family partition has given the property in dispute to his daughter Smt. Santra. In view of the above, now revisionist cannot be permitted to allege that in fact after the death of Sheonath, Dhan Kaur became the owner and Dhan Kaur has gifted the property by way of alleged gift deed dated 27.07.1970 in favour of Santra and from Santra, wife of the revisionist had purchased the property. In view of the above, now revisionist cannot be permitted to allege that in fact after the death of Sheonath, Dhan Kaur became the owner and Dhan Kaur has gifted the property by way of alleged gift deed dated 27.07.1970 in favour of Santra and from Santra, wife of the revisionist had purchased the property. Of course, where Court finds that any additional evidence is required to decide the lis effectively, then Court can accept additional evidence during the appeal and revision. However, if evidence sought to be placed as an additional evidence is not in accordance with the pleadings and evidence already placed and is in contradiction of the case pleaded and taken before the Courts below then party seeking to place additional evidence cannot be permitted to take U turn from the earlier case taken in the two Courts below and set up a new case during the revision. Moreover, revisionist has placed on record only Photostat copy of the alleged gift deed and has not placed either certified copy of the gift deed or original gift deed. Photostat copy is not admissible in evidence. 11. Learned Rent Controller has recorded finding of fact that Smt. Dhan Kaur wife of Sheonath expired on 08.12.1995 and from the death certificate (Ex. A13), it is proved that Santra expired on 16.09.1992. From the perusal of the record, I agree with the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller that Smt. Santra mother of the present respondent expired during the life time of her mother Dhan Kaur. Since mother of the respondent - landlord Santra expired on 15.09.1992 and Dhan Kaur was having no other issue, hence, landlord-respondent, being son of daughter, otherwise also would have inherited the property from his maternal grandmother Smt. Dhan Kaur and is the owner. 12. Undisputedly, revisionist - tenant has not tendered any rent. 13. In view of the above, application seeking to place on additional evidence, as well as, present revision shall stand dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, two months time is granted to the tenant - revisionist herein to handover peaceful vacant possession to the landlord - respondent,