JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is preferred invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 18.10.2014, passed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramnagar, District Nainital as well as judgment and order dated 13.04.2015, passed by the Revisional Court/1st Addl. District Judge, Nainital. 2. Undisputed brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that respondent herein has filed release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the petitioner herein seeking eviction of the petitioner from the suit property on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. Petitioner contested the application by way of filing the written statement. On 02.05.2014, landlord respondent herein has filed affidavit in the plaintiff evidence. Thereafter, petitioner defendant thereof has filed counter affidavits in defence evidence on 04.07.2014 and 08.08.2014. Thereafter, plaintiff landlord has filed rejoinder affidavit on 19.09.2014. Petitioner defendant thereof has moved application dated 18.10.2014 before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that since plaintiff landlord has taken new pleas and has filed new documents in the rejoinder affidavit, therefore, opportunity to rebut those additional allegation and documents should be granted to the petitioner defendant thereof. Application so moved by the petitioner was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 18.10.2014 and revision arising therefrom also came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.04.2015. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. In the impugned judgment dated 13.04.2014, learned Revisional Court has observed that if plaintiff respondent has taken new case in the rejoinder that shall not be read and shall not be taken into account. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Sachedeva Vs. Mahendra Pratap Sah and others, reported in 2014 (2) U.D., 92. In paragraph 8, this Court has observed as under :- “In my considered opinion, rejoinder affidavit should be confined to controvert the contents of counter affidavit and plaintiff should not be permitted to say something new which was not in the original pleading and evidence. Mahendra Pratap Sah and others, reported in 2014 (2) U.D., 92. In paragraph 8, this Court has observed as under :- “In my considered opinion, rejoinder affidavit should be confined to controvert the contents of counter affidavit and plaintiff should not be permitted to say something new which was not in the original pleading and evidence. If plaintiff seeks to file some additional evidence along with rejoinder affidavit or wants to take out some new things in rejoinder affidavit, which was neither here nor there, then of course, he has to seek leave of the court for additional (new) evidence. If leave is granted to the plaintiff then of course, fair opportunity should be granted to the defendant to rebut the same, otherwise, plaintiff would be in a better position and would amount to walk over ignoring the principles of natural justice.” 5. It is true that plaintiff should not be permitted to take new pleading or new case or new evidence in the rejoinder affidavit. If plaintiff wants to place on record new pleading or evidence by way of rejoinder affidavit, he should seek leave of the Court and if leave is granted, defendant should be given opportunity to rebut the same. If leave is not granted than such additional pleading or additional evidence filed alongwith rejoinder affidavit shall not be read and same shall be ignored. 6. Learned Revisional Court has rightly observed that new plea / evidence taken in rejoinder affidavit shall be of no value. Therefore, petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved person. 7. In view of the above, writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 8. CLMA No. 5814 of 2015 stands disposed of accordingly.