JUDGMENT : By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/tenant assails order dated 06.02.2020, passed by learned Rent Controller-I, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. in CMA No.72 of 2020, titled as Rajiv Mahajan Versus Ashwani Kumar, filed in a Rent Petition No.02 of 2016, vide which an application moved under Order 8, Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present petitioner, stood dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents appended with the petition including the impugned order. 3. Record demonstrates that the respondent/ landlord has filed an application for eviction of the petitioner/tenant, under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, inter alia, on the grounds of cease to occupy and also causing material impairment to the value of utility of the Bills. The eviction petition was filed in the year 2016. 4. After recording of the evidence of the landlord, despite numerous opportunities being availed by the tenant to conclude his evidence, the same was not done, which lead to the learned Court below to pass an order of closing the evidence of the tenant, on 29.07.2019. 5. Thereafter, an application stood filed by the tenant under Order 8, Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Annexure P-4), with the prayer that the tenant be granted permission to place on record the photographs of the shop as also the electricity bills of the shop in dispute. It was mentioned in the application that the documents intended to be placed on record could not be produced by the applicant at the time of closing of evidence despite due diligence and the documents otherwise were material for the adjudication of the case and therefore, the same be taken on record. 6. The application was resisted by the landlord, inter alia, on the ground that the tenant could not be permitted to place on record the documents as he had failed to do the needful at the time of leading evidence since 28.11.2017. It was also mentioned in the response that the documents proposed to be placed on record were not at all necessary for the adjudication of the case and the application was filed with the sole intent of delaying the proceedings. 7. It was also mentioned in the response that the documents proposed to be placed on record were not at all necessary for the adjudication of the case and the application was filed with the sole intent of delaying the proceedings. 7. Vide order dated 06.02.2020, learned Rent Controller dismissed the application. While passing the order it held that the proposed documents were not produced by the tenant at the time of filing of reply to the main petition or during the course of leading evidence. It observed that the petition was pending since the year 2016 and the same was pending for recording evidence of the tenant since 11.01.2018. Numerous opportunities were availed by the tenant to conclude its evidence and ultimately the same had to be closed by the order of the Court, on 29.07.2019. The electricity bill sought to be produced on record pertained to the month of September, 2019. The Rent Petition was, inter alia, filed on the ground that the tenant had ceased to occupy the tenanted premises continuously for a period of twelve months preceding the date of filing of the petition. Therefore, subsequent occupation of the tenanted premises would not have any bearing on the rent petition. Learned Rent Controller further observed that as far as photographs were concerned, it was not mentioned as to on what date the same were taken and there was nothing to justify as to why the same could not be placed on record earlier by the tenant. Learned Rent Controller observed that the tenant cannot be allowed to reopen the trial by granting him opportunity to place on record the documents, prayed for, after ample opportunity stood granted to the tenant to conclude his evidence. On these basis, learned Rent Controller dismissed the case. 8. In my considered view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, which stands impugned by way of this petition. It is not in dispute that the eviction proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in the year 2016. On these basis, learned Rent Controller dismissed the case. 8. In my considered view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, which stands impugned by way of this petition. It is not in dispute that the eviction proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in the year 2016. It is also not in dispute that the matter was kept pending for a long time for recording and concluding the evidence of the tenant and during said period no endeavour or effort was made by the tenant to place on record the documents which were now intended to be placed on record by way of application, which stood dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. 9. Order 8, Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, envisages that where defendant basis his evidence upon a document or relies upon a document in his possession or power in support of his defence etc., he shall enter such document in evidence and produce in the court when the written statement is filed. Order 8, Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure further provides that the document which ought to be produced in the Court by the defendant under Order 8, Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, but is not produced, shall not without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. 10. Admittedly, the documents in issue were not placed on record by the tenant at the time when he filed his response to the eviction proceedings or during the course of leading evidence. Why so, is not spelled out from the averments contained in the application filed under Order 8, Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. All that is mentioned in this application is that the documents could not be placed on record despite exercising due diligence. 11. In the considered view of the Court, the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure are not to condone the acts of omissions of the defendant nor the intent of the said provision is to allow the defendant to fill up lacunae in the case. 11. In the considered view of the Court, the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure are not to condone the acts of omissions of the defendant nor the intent of the said provision is to allow the defendant to fill up lacunae in the case. The powers conferred upon the Court under the said provision are to be exercised diligently where the Court is satisfied that despite due diligence, the documents could not be placed on record by the defendant and the same is otherwise necessary for deciding the lis between the parties. 12. In this case, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that despite due diligence he could not have had produced said documents on record earlier. Besides this, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned Rent Controller, otherwise also the documents intended to be placed on record do not further the cause of the tenant as admittedly the electricity bill sought to be placed on record pertains to the year 2019, whereas the petition seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of cease to occupy has been filed in the year 2016. The findings returned by the learned Rent Controller with regard to the photographs that the same were undated etc., are also a matter of record. 13. Otherwise also, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not to ordinarily interfere with the orders passed by learned Court below, if the view taken by the Court is one of the views possible on the basis of pleadings and evidence before it. The interference can be only in the cases of perversity. The impugned order herein, in the considered view of the Court does not suffers from any perversity and the view which has been taken by the learned Rent Controller is one of the views possible on the basis of averments contained in the application filed under Order 8, Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as reply on record. 14. Accordingly, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 13.09.2021. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.