Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 386 (UTT)

Ram Kumar Gupta v. Yograj

2014-09-17

ALOK SINGH

body2014
Judgment Alok Singh, J. Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 09.02.2010, passed by the Additional District Judge, Rishikesh in Rent Control Appeal No. 69 of 2007 whereby application moved by the landlord/appellants/respondents herein under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. seeking permission to take on record certified copies of the sale deed, original will and of the assessment register of the Municipality and information received under the R.T.I. Act, was allowed. 2. Landlord/appellants/respondents herein preferred an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for seeking possession of the property after eviction of the tenant/petitioner herein on the ground of bonafide need. Learned Trial Court/Prescribed Authority was pleased to dismiss the application so filed by the landlord on the ground that landlord has not placed on record either original sale deed or will and has placed on record only copies thereof. Learned Prescribed Authority further held that as per the copy of the will, property of municipal No. 42 seems to have been bequeathed, however, municipal number of the property was only 43. Feeling aggrieved, landlord petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority and moved application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. seeking permission to place on record certified copies of the sale deed, registered will, copies of the assessment register of the Municipality as well as information received from R.T.I. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. IBrahim Uddin and another reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 , has vehemently argued that application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. can only be heard and decided at the time of final hearing of the appeal to find out as to whether documents sought to be produced are required for the fair adjudication of the case or not and such application should not be entertained prior to the final hearing in the appeal. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India (Supra), in paragraph No. 49 and 52 has held as under:- “An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the Appellate Court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The true test, therefore is, whether the Appellate Court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examining the evidence as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the Court. (Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh, AIR 1951 SC 193 & Natha Singh & Ors. v. The Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1053 ). Thus, from the above, it is crystal clear that application for taking additional evidence on record at an appellate stage, even if filed during the pendency of the appeal, is to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal at a stage when after appreciating the evidence on record, the court reaches the conclusion that additional evidence was required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. In case, application for taking additional evidence on record has been considered and allowed prior to the hearing of the appeal, the order being a product of total and complete non-application of mind, as to whether such evidence is required to be taken on record to pronounce the judgment or not, remains inconsequential/inexecutable and is liable to be ignored.” 5. Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, submits that since copies of the will and sale deed were produced before the Prescribed Authority, therefore, certified copies thereof can be admitted during the appeal. He further contends that municipal number of the property is changed after every assessment undertaken by the Municipality. Further contends that in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India (Supra), application so moved by the appellants/respondents herein may once again be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 6. He further contends that municipal number of the property is changed after every assessment undertaken by the Municipality. Further contends that in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India (Supra), application so moved by the appellants/respondents herein may once again be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 6. In view of the above, present petition, thus, stands disposed of with the direction that application so moved by the appellants/respondents shall be reconsidered afresh at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 7. Order impugned stands quashed.