JUDGMENT : U.C. DHYANI, J. 1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned order dated 05.01.2016 (Annexure No. 8) passed by learned District Judge, Dehradun. 2. An appeal is pending before learned District Judge, Dehradun against the order dated 19.02.2015 of Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 3 of 2013. 3. It is a landlord-tenant dispute, in which the landlord had moved an application for release of his shop before the learned Prescribed Authority. Landlord’s application was allowed and tenant was directed to vacate the shop in question, vide order dated 19.02.2015. Aggrieved against the same, an appeal has been preferred by the tenant. During the pendency of the appeal, the tenant moved an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 C.P.C. for additional evidence. The same was dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide order dated 05.01.2016 and hence, present writ petition. 4. In application under Order XLI, Rule 27 C.P.C. the tenant wanted to file certain documents, during the pendency of Rent Control Appeal, but, according to the Appellate Court, the tenant could not establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence could not be produced by him at the time, when the decree appeal against was passed. 5. It was the contention of the tenant before the Appellate Court that such documents were found by him from a box in the bed during the course of whitewashing. 6. A prudent person would not fathom that such documents could not have been filed by the tenant, if they were within his knowledge, in exercise of due diligence. Appellate Court has, therefore, dismissed the application under Order XLI, Rule 27 C.P.C. on the aforesaid sole ground, which is within such scheme. This Court is unable to take a view different from what was taken by the Appellate Court. 7. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.