JUDGMENT Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The instant petition has been filed challenging an order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge/F.T.C., Court No. 52, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 70 of 2015 by which application 37-Ga filed by the petitioner to bring on record an RTI query report dated 10th August, 2016, obtained from the Information Officer of the Cantonment Board, Kanpur Nagar, has been rejected. 3. A perusal of the record would go to show that the landlord-respondents had filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in respect of an accommodation which was in possession of the tenant-petitioner. The release application was contested by setting up a claim, inter alia, that the landlord had other accommodation i.e. House No. 54, Meerpur Cantt., Kanpur and House No. 274-A Meerpur, Cantt., Kanpur available to satisfy his need. As to what was the extent of those accommodations was fact in issue. The Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence brought on record allowed the release application by order dated 7.9.2015 against which Rent Appeal No. 70 of 2015 was filed which remains pending before the appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, an application 37-Ga was filed to bring on record an RTI report dated 10th August, 2016 issued by the Public Information Officer, Cantonment Board, Kanpur disclosing that House No. 54, Meerpur Chhawani was constructed without obtaining sanction of building plan and that one Mukhtar Ahmad was paying house tax, water tax, etc. of the said premises and in an inspection conducted by the office of the Cantonment Board it was found that Mukhtar Ahmad was in occupation of the premises and had illegally constructed ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor. The description of the constructions on various floors was also disclosed therein. 4. The Court below rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that the appellant cannot be allowed to fill lacuna in his evidence at the appellate stage because the prescribed authority had given his verdict on 7.9.2015 whereas the RTI query was made on 12.5.2016. 5. The description of the constructions on various floors was also disclosed therein. 4. The Court below rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that the appellant cannot be allowed to fill lacuna in his evidence at the appellate stage because the prescribed authority had given his verdict on 7.9.2015 whereas the RTI query was made on 12.5.2016. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the RTI report could be obtained only during the pendency of the appeal, the same ought to have been accepted and should not have been rejected on technical ground that the tenant cannot be allowed to fill lacuna in his case as observed by the appellate Court. 6. The reasons recorded for rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 7 CPC may not be very sound but this Court is of the view that RTI report disclosing that a report was obtained in connection with some proceeding, would not be relevant in the proceeding of the present case. Because a report submitted in some other proceeding has no relevance unless that proceeding itself is a fact in issue or that proceeding is of a nature where the resultant order would be like a judgment in rem. In case the petitioner wants to show that the landlord already has adequate accommodation available with him then he must lead evidence in the present case either by way of affidavits or by calling for local inspection report, as may be advised. But placing reliance on some report in some other proceeding would not serve any purpose. I therefore do not find any good reason to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority. 7. The petition is dismissed.