JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant Civil Revision Petition stands directed against the concurrently recorded renditions of both the learned Courts below whereby they recorded an order of eviction of the tenant/petitioner herein from the demised premises. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the landowner rented out to the tenant/petitioner herein the tenanted premises known as House No.90/1, Anand Cottage, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 on a monthly rent of Rs.30/-. It consists of two rooms, glazed veranda with kitchen, bathroom and open area in front. The building is alleged to be more than 100 years old. The respondent is tenant in it since 1982. The eviction of the tenant stands sought by the landlord on the ground that the premises under the occupation of the petitioner/tenant is bonafidely required by the petitioner for the purpose of building/rebuilding and making substantial addition or alterations and such building/rebuilding and addition/alterations cannot be carried out without building in question being vacated by the occupant/tenant. It is also stated that only the portion in the occupation of tenant remained to be rebuild as the petitioner is having the necessary permission from the M.C. Shimla. Rest of the portion is already constructed as per the sanctioned plan. The petitioner being the old lady wants to complete the construction during her life time and is having the adequate funds. 3. The tenant contested the petition and filed reply thereto, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections qua the landlord not filing the copy of the sanctioned map, maintainability and petition not filed on true facts and proper verification. On merits, the tenant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant inter se the parties but denied the other allegations pleaded in the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner purchased the premises from Harbhagwan Anand, who inducted the respondent/petitioner herein as tenant. The landlord/respondent herein started harassing the respondent/tenant/petitioner herein by depriving him to use essential amenities just to get the premises vacated. The tenant/respondent is ready to enhance the rent permissible under the Act or otherwise enhance the rent ten times but the petitioner is adamant to evict the respondent/tenant by one pretext or the other. It is denied that the premises is required for renovation and rebuilding. The petitioner has carried out the repair or rebuilding in the year 1996 as per the sanctioned map. It is denied that the premises is required for renovation and rebuilding. The petitioner has carried out the repair or rebuilding in the year 1996 as per the sanctioned map. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition may be dismissed with costs. 4. The landlord/respondent herein filed rejoinder to the reply of the tenant/petitioner herein, wherein, she denied the contents of the reply and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the petition. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the suit premises is bonafide required by the applicant for rebuilding and reconstruction, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the applicant is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR. 3. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition of the landlord/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred there from by the tenant/petitioner herein before the learned Appellate Authority, the latter Court dismissed the appeal. 7. Now the petitioner herein/tenant has instituted the instant Civil Revision Petition before this Court assailing the findings concurrently recorded against him by both the learned Courts below. 8. The landlord/respondent herein succeeded in establishing qua hers bonafidely requiring the demised premises for its rebuilding and reconstruction conspicuously when the evidence adduced in discharge of the apposite issue cast qua the aforesaid statutory ground reared by the landlord for seeking the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises, holds probative worth, thereupon, the concurrently recorded pronouncements of both the learned Courts below whereupon the tenant/petitioner herein stood ordered to be evicted from the demised premises warrant theirs not standing scuttled. However, the learned counsel appearing for the tenant/petitioner herein has with vigour contended before this Court qua with the tenant during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority instituting there before two applications, both constituted under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC with a prayer standing ventilated therein qua the Appellate Authority according vis-a-vis the tenant/petitioner an apposite leave for adduction into evidence certain documents appended with the aforesaid applications also concerted to make a relief therein qua his being permitted to canvass there before certain subsequent developments, though warranting an affirmative pronouncement thereon whereas theirs standing dismissed has vitiated the impugned verdict. Conspicuously, when the tenant through the aforesaid concert reared before the learned Appellate Authority aspired to communicate qua it directly impinging upon the landlord not at the time contemporaneous to the institution of the apposite petition before the learned Rent Controller holding the mandatory statutory authorization from the authorities concerned for reconstructing the demised premises, besides, concomitantly his aspiration to thereupon echo qua hence his concert to lay bare the stratagem of the landlord to contrive to seek his eviction from the demised premises standing defacilitated. He also contends here before qua thereupon the apposite ground whereupon both the learned Courts below concurrently pronounced an order of eviction upon the tenant dehors potent evidence in substantiation thereto standing adduced there before by the landlord yet the emanations embodied in the applications aforesaid instituted before the Appellate Authority if permitted to be adduced by the tenant into evidence hence acquires colourability besides would deprive the landlord to derive any leverage from the impugned renditions here at. Lastly, he espouses qua only on an affirmative relief standing accorded on the applications instituted there before by the petitioner herein/tenant would facilitate a just, fair and effective adjudication standing pronounced upon the grounds of eviction reared in the apposite petition constituted by the landlord. 9. A studied perusal of the impugned rendition recorded by the learned Appellate Authority whereat the aforesaid applications stood instituted, where within the aforesaid portrayals stand recorded, underscores qua the learned Appellate Authority in pronouncing an order qua their rejection had laid immense emphasis upon the provisions cast in clause (aa) of Sub Rule (1) to Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC. Provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 read as under;- 27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. Provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 read as under;- 27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if- (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.” Within the ambit of the statutory provisions held in clause (aa) to sub Rule (1 of Rule 27 of Order 41 of the CPC, a mandate is held qua impermissibility qua according of leave to adduce any additional evidence before the Appellate Court unless it stands firmly established there before qua earlier thereto despite exercise of due diligence by the applicant, his standing disabled to produce it, or evident display occurring qua his not earlier holding any knowledge qua its existence whereupon the learned Appellate Court would stand constrained to accord the apposite relief to the applicant. With the enshrined statutory parameters engrafted in clause (aa) to sub rule (1) of order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC standing unsatiated constrained the Appellate Court to dismiss the aforesaid applications constituted there before under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC. With the enshrined statutory parameters engrafted in clause (aa) to sub rule (1) of order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC standing unsatiated constrained the Appellate Court to dismiss the aforesaid applications constituted there before under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC. Apart there from, the learned Appellate Authority also dwelt upon the factum qua the statutory parameters encapsulated in clause (b) to sub rule (1) of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC begetting satiation, provisions whereof postulate qua the Appellate Court holding the statutory empowerment to permit adduction there before of any document proposed to be tendered thereat by the appellant/applicant as additional evidence dehors non satiation occurring vis-a-vis the mandate held in the earlier provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, imperatively when the documents proposed to be adduced as additional evidence there before stand concluded by the Appellate Authority to hold efficacious worth for facilitating it to pronounce a judgment upon the lis. The learned Appellate Authority while interpreting the provisions of clause (b) of sub rule (1) of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC had concluded qua the mandate held therein standing unestablished given the documents proposed to be adduced there before as additional evidence being merely a concert of the applicant/appellant to rectify the defects besides for overcoming the shortcomings in his defence to the apposite petition for eviction constituted by the landlord before the learned Rent Controller concerned. 10. Before testing the strength of the aforesaid reasons assigned by the learned Appellate Authority anvil led upon its interpreting clause (b) to sub rule (1) of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, this Court is initially enjoined to allude to the factum qua the respondent herein/landlord evidently accepting the prima donna factum qua excepting the portion of the building wherein the tenant is residing, the landlord rebuilding besides reconstructing the relevant structure under a valid relevant statutory permission accorded by the competent authority. However, the permission qua the aforesaid facet stood accorded as evident from Mark-A by the statutory authorities vis-a-vis the landlord/respondent herein in the year 1996. However, the permission qua the aforesaid facet stood accorded as evident from Mark-A by the statutory authorities vis-a-vis the landlord/respondent herein in the year 1996. The longevity of the relevant permission accorded to the landlord by the competent statutory authority though has remained unsubstantiated by the landlord/respondent herein to survive up to the date whereon she in the year 2008 by constituting an apposite petition before the learned Rent Controller concerned strived to seek eviction of the petitioner herein/tenant. Nonetheless, the effect of the aforesaid inference does not warrant any erection of any inference qua the landlord/respondent herein not holding any valid authorization for reconstructing the demised premises whereon the tenant/petitioner is residing nor thereupon any concomitant inference is erectable qua the landlord contriving the relevant ground for eviction of the tenant. The reason for this Court erecting the aforesaid inference ensues from a perusal of sub section (3) to Section 247 of the Municipal Corporation Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, where within a mandate stands cast upon the builder/person, who obtains the apposite sanction from the Municipal Corporation to put the relevant permission into execution within one year from the date whereon the apposite sanction stands accorded vis-a-vis him by the authority concerned also on proven want or failure in respect thereto alone enjoining him to obtain a fresh relevant sanction from the authority concerned. Significantly, when as afore stated, the landlord in pursuance to a valid relevant permission embodied in Mark-A standing accorded vis-a-vis her by the Municipal Corporation, did proceed to commence the lawfully permitted building activity besides when neither Mark-A nor any statutory provisions held in the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act hold any fiat there within qua the builder/person on obtaining the apposite sanction for the relevant construction/building activity from the authority concerned, his standing in juncted to complete it within a specified time schedule. Sequel, thereof is qua even with the landlord not evidently reconstructing/rebuilding the demised premises since the according of an apposite sanction qua her comprised in Mark-A, especially rather with hers evidently in pursuance thereto within one year there from excepting the demised premises holding the relevant permitted building activity whereupon with the landlord hence within the ambit of sub section (3) of Section 247 of the Municipal Corporation Act commencing erection of the building or hers putting into execution the relevant sanction conspicuously when no evidence in rebuttal thereto stands adduced, thereupon when she did infract the relevant statutory provisions supra, she cannot stand entailed with any obligation to obtain a fresh sanction for the reconstruction/rebuilding of the demised premises from the authority concerned nor also the sanction accorded by the competent authority embodied in Mark-A can stand construed to lapse nor can the landlord be de-facilitated from espousing qua hers holding the statutory capacity to seek eviction of the tenant from the demised premises, significantly when she holds qua it also a valid permission for its rebuilding besides its reconstruction. The effect of this Court resting the aforesaid trite factum probandum qua the unnecessity of the landlord to in succession to Mark-A obtain a fresh sanction from the Municipal Corporation, Shimla for rebuilding the demised premises is qua the espousal of the tenant here before anvil led upon the factum of the landlord purportedly not holding the apposite permission qua the demised premises from the authority concerned hers hence contriving to seek the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises, standing wholly blunted. The relevant provisions of sub section (3) to Section 247 of the Municipal Corporation Act read as under:- “247. When building or work may be proceeded with.- (1).............. (2).............. (3) If the person or any one lawfully claiming under him does not commence the erection of the building or the execution of the work within one year of the date on which the building or work is sanctioned or is deemed to have been sanctioned, he shall have to give notice under section 244 or, as the case may be, under section 243 for fresh sanction of the building or the work and the provisions of this section shall apply in relation to such notice as they apply in relation to the original notice.” 11. Further the sequel of the aforesaid conclusion recorded by this Court is qua the proclamations made by the tenant in his applications constituted before the learned Appellate Authority under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC standing aptly concluded by the latter to be neither just nor essential nor relevant for pronouncing a just and fair adjudication qua the relevant factum probandum. Also any adjudication upon the factum of any purported misrepresentation made by the landlord to the Municipal Corporation, Shimla whereupon she obtained there from the apposite sanction of building plans is statutorily forbidden significantly when the aforesaid ground stands constituted in the apposite statute to be a ground for the authority concerned to proceed to act against her in accordance therewith thereupon any adjudication by this Court qua any purported misrepresentation of the landlord in obtaining sanction qua her building plans from the Municipal Corporation would untenably both undermine the impact besides the rigor of the special statute nomenclatured as The H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, also would beget the inapt sequel of this Court snatching the apposite statutory empowerment of the authority concerned to pronounce a verdict thereupon. Moreover when no issue apposite to the aforesaid proclamations stood struck, for want of apposite pleadings standing constituted also fosters this Court to conclude qua the relevant echoings occurring therein being not just and essential for deciding any germane issue. Consequently this Court concludes qua the aforesaid proclamations occurring in the applications instituted by the tenant before the learned Appellate Authority devolving upon the factum of the relevant building permission standing obtained under misrepresentation from the competent authority by the landlord, hence, precluding this Court to pronounce any adjudication thereupon, significantly, when the apposite statutory mechanism encapsulated in the apposite statute may stand availed by the tenant to make his relevant espousal before the statutory authorities. Even the lack of the authority concerned not according sanction upon the revised plan submitted by the landlord to the authority concerned, refusal whereof has ensued from certain shortcomings unraveled in the apposite communication addressed by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla to the landlord, occurring therein, defects whereof besides shortcomings therein when may stand rectified, hence may facilitate her to obtain sanction of revised plans vis-a-vis portions not in the occupation of the petitioner herein/tenant whereat the relevant permitted building activity stands completed, thereupon it would be in sagacious for this Court to conclude qua the landlord not holding the apposite permission for rebuilding/reconstructing the demised premises. 12. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as also by the learned trial Court stand based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 13. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the instant petition, which is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned judgments/orders are maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.