Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1011 (ALL)

DINESH KUMAR MAHESHWARI v. LAXMI NARAYAN GOEL

2011-04-20

RAKESH TIWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT : RAKESH TIWARI, J. – Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 15.2.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.4 in SCC revision No. 27 of 2010, Laxmi Narayan Goyal v. Dinesh Kumar Maheshwari. 2. Backdrop of the case is that landlord-respondent filed SCC suit No.6 of 199, Laxmi Narain Gael v. Dinesh Kumar Maheshwari, for eviction of the tenant-petitioner from the shop in dispute and arrears of rent, on the ground that petitioner was tenant of the shop at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month; that tenant had committed default in payment of rent which was with effect from 1.7.1990 and was not paid by him despite notice dated 16.2.1991. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement. 3. The question before the Trial Court was as to whether there was any default in payment of rent as claimed by the landlord and whether the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. 13 of 1972), were applicable to the building in question or not. 4. The Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 31.1.2010 came to the conclusion that there was no default in payment of rent by the tenant and that provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable and accordingly dismissed the suit. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the plaintiff-respondent preferred SCC revision No. 27 of 2010. An application was moved by the plaintiff-respondent in the aforesaid revision on 10.12.2010 for bringing on record additional evidence in exercise of the powers under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C., to which objection was filed by the petitioner. The Revisional Court by the impugned order, has allowed the application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. on payment of cost of Rs. 500/-. 6. Contention of the Counsel for petitioner is that by way of additional evidence, the landlord-respondent sought to bring on record a copy of question answer issued by the office of Nagar Palika, Hapur on an, application under Right to Information Act wherein it has been stated that the shop in dispute was first assessed on 30.9.1982. 500/-. 6. Contention of the Counsel for petitioner is that by way of additional evidence, the landlord-respondent sought to bring on record a copy of question answer issued by the office of Nagar Palika, Hapur on an, application under Right to Information Act wherein it has been stated that the shop in dispute was first assessed on 30.9.1982. According to the petitioner, he had categorically taken a plea in his objection to the aforesaid application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. that the applicable was not maintainable. 7. Per contra, Counsel for the landlord-respondent submits that the plea whether the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable to the building or not, is a question of fact and law. It is stated that the landlord had applied under the Right to Information Act to Nagar Palik a, Hapur making a query as to the date of first assessment of the building. According to him, as this would have clarified the position and would have assisted the Court in coming to the conclusion as to whether the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable to the building in question or not. 8. After hearing Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident from the impugned order that the Revisional Court has come to the conclusion that document Nos. 14-Ga and 15-Ga issued by Nagar Palika, Hapur submitted with list No. 13-Ga, are public documents and these documents would assist the Court in determining the question as to whether the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable or not to the building in question and accordingly has accepted these documents on payment of cost of Rs. 500/-. It has further been observed in the order that whether these documents are admissible in evidence or not, shall be decided at the time of final decision in the revision. 9. In my mind, if the Court below is of the opinion that certain public documents filed by a party would help it in resolving the controversy and pronouncing the judgment, it is within the domain of discretion of the Court to accept the application filed under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. with a view to do substantial justice between the parties. The Revisional Court has exercised this power assigning cogent reasons therefor. The Revisional Court has exercised this power assigning cogent reasons therefor. The question whether those public documents are admissible in evidence or not, is yet to be decided at the time of final decision in the revision. 10. In the facts and circumstances stated above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter at this stage in exercise of its extra-ordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Writ Petition Dismissed.