JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Instant Revision Petition, under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rent Act’), has been preferred against judgment dated 9.9.2019, passed by Appellate Authority-II, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Rent Appeal No.1-S/13(b) of 2017, titled as Ramesh Kumar v. Leela Devi, whereby order dated 25.11.2016, passed by Rent Controller, Court No.2, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Case No.39/2 of 2015/2014, titled as Leela Devi v. Ramesh, has been upheld, and also against order dated 9.9.2019, passed by the Appellate Authority in CMP No.53-S/6 of 2018, filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for production/leading additional evidence, whereby the application has been dismissed. 2. It has been contended on behalf of tenant petitioner that there is neither written agreement nor rent receipt or any other document to substantiate the oral claim of the landlord-respondent that the petitioner was her tenant, whereas it has been admitted by the respondent that the petitioner has constructed his own house and shop in Khasra No.135 and, thus, Rent Petition was not maintainable for want of material/ documentary evidence. It has been submitted that oral statement of respondent has been rebutted by the petitioner by oral statement and, therefore, oral claim of the respondent is not sufficient to establish her claim as landlord. Further that the landlord-respondent has placed on record copy of Jamabandi for the year 1964-65 (Ex. PW-1/B), wherein Khasra number of the premises, in reference, has been mentioned as 347 min, which is not sufficient to prove relation of landlord and tenant and, thus, both the Courts below have committed a material irregularity and illegality by considering the respondent as landlord. To substantiate this plea, reliance has been placed on Rajendra Tiwary versus Basudeo Prasad and another, (2002) 1 SCC 90 ; and Madan Mohan Singh v. Ved Prakash Arya, (2021) 5 SCC 456 . 3. By referring Jamabandi of year 2010-22, it has been contended on behalf of tenant that respondent has not been shown in possession of the premises in reference and, therefore, her claim as landlord, on the basis of old record is not tenable for presumption of truth attached with the revenue record. 4. 3. By referring Jamabandi of year 2010-22, it has been contended on behalf of tenant that respondent has not been shown in possession of the premises in reference and, therefore, her claim as landlord, on the basis of old record is not tenable for presumption of truth attached with the revenue record. 4. It has been further argued on behalf of tenant that in view of provisions of Order VII Rule 3 CPC description of the property, sufficient to identity it, was required to be placed on record, but the landlord has failed to do so and, therefore, the Courts below have committed a mistake of law by allowing the eviction petition filed by the landlord-respondent. 5. It has been argued that an application filed by petitioner, under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, before the Appellate Authority, has been wrongly rejected as it was necessary to place on record the documents indicating that respondent was never linked as owner or as possessor of the property in the new entries of revenue record, so as to clarify the ambiguity and to show exact location of the property for which eviction petition was filed. 6. Relying upon pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Uttaradi Mutt v. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, (2018) 10 SCC 484 , it has been contended that documents proposed to be placed on record, as additional evidence, are Government documents, i.e. revenue record and copy of order passed under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which would be necessary to show that respondent has approached the Court without title and possession of the land in reference and, thus, was not entitled to maintain the Rent Petition, and the additional evidence sought to the adduced was necessary to remove the cloud of doubt over the case and the proposed additional evidence has a direct and important bearing upon the main issue in the petition and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that the application should have been allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the landlord-respondent has submitted that claim of the respondent is not based only on oral evidence but the same is substantiated by Jamabandi Ex. 7. Learned counsel for the landlord-respondent has submitted that claim of the respondent is not based only on oral evidence but the same is substantiated by Jamabandi Ex. PW-1/B, wherein Medh Ram, husband of respondent, has been reflected in possession of 2 biswas of land in Khasra No.347 min and it is not the case of petitioner that he is not in possession of the premises referred in Khasra No.347 min, which was in possession of husband of the respondent. It has been further contended that in reply to the petition, identity of the property has not been disputed but it was averred that landlord be directed to file better particulars/latest revenue record. Further that absence of landlord-respondent in the latest revenue entry does not preclude her from filing the eviction petition as she has already filed an application before the revenue authorities for correction of the revenue entries. 8. It has been further contended on behalf of the landlord that tenant-petitioner has failed to rebut the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record for substantiating his claim that he has constructed the house and shop on the land in reference, rather, as a matter of fact, no such plea has been taken in reply to the eviction petition and, therefore, suggestion put to the respondent, during cross-examination, to that effect deserves to be ignored, particularly for the reason that the suggestion put to the landlord was for claiming ownership of shop and room in reference, which was never pleaded in the reply to the eviction petition, and for this reason deposition of tenant claiming ownership of room and shop, in his statement recorded as RW-1, is also to be discarded for want of such pleading in the reply. 9. It has been further contended that it is not a case where tenant was not aware about identity of the property, but he was insisting for placing on record revenue record with new Khasra number of the premises in reference, and for knowing identity of premises, though in reply relationship of landlord and tenant has been denied but in cross-examination tenant has admitted that he had not paid rent to the respondent since 1993. Whereas, the eviction petition was filed on the ground of arrears of rent, which were calculated by the Rent Controller on the basis of material on record and admission of the tenant and for assailing the eviction order, on the ground of arrears of rent, it was mandatory for the tenant to pay/deposit the amount due within a period of thirty days from date of order, i.e. thirty days after 25.11.2016, as provided under Section 14(2) of the Rent Act, whereas petitioner has failed to deposit the amount within period of thirty days to assail the eviction on the ground of nonpayment of rent and, therefore, appeal of the tenant was liable to be dismissed on this sole ground and, resultantly, present Revision Petition is not maintainable for want to deposit of arrears of rent within the period prescribed under the Rent Act. 10. To substantiate the aforesaid plea, pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Sri Chand (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Surinder Singh, (2020) 6 SCC 288 , has been referred, wherein for non-deposit of necessary amount by the tenant to save himself from eviction, claim of the tenant was rejected. 11. In present case, there was no stay, granted by the Appellate Authority or any other competent Court of law, against the order of eviction dated 25.11.2016, passed by the Rent Controller, and the tenant-petitioner has not deposited the amount due as determined by the Rent Controller as arrears of rent. 12. This High Court in Satish Kumar and another v. Jagat Ram, 2020 (1) RCR 0442 (HP); and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Vinod Lakhan Pal, 2015 (4) ILR(HP) 652, has reiterated that the statutory period of thirty days, within which the liability of rent determined against the tenant is defrayable to the landlord by the legally permissible mode, is neither extendable nor enlargeable and where arrears of rent have been determined by Rent Controller, even though may not be termed as amount due, the same has to be deposited within thirty days from the date of order of the Rent Controller as payment of rent due, within period of thirty days, is a condition precedent and sine qua non for maintaining an appeal before Appellate Authority otherwise order of Rent Controller has to be treated to have attained finality and appeal must be dismissed. 13. 13. Referring pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and others v. M. Chinniyan and another, (2016) 3 SCC 296 , it has been contended that scope and nature of enquiry, under the Rent Act, is only to examine the status of landlord and the landlord may not be necessarily a title holder of the premises in reference, as scope of enquiry before the Rent Controller was limited to the question as to whether grounds for eviction of the tenant have been made out under the Rent Act or not, because tenant has never raised question of title, claiming his ownership on the property or disputing the possession of husband of the respondent on the premises in reference and further question of title of the premises is not relevant because of the definition of “landlord” and “tenant”, provided under Sections 2(d) and 2(j) of the Rent Act, wherein landlord need not, always to be owner of the premises in reference. 14. In Rajendra Tiwary’s case also, relied upon by the tenant, the Supreme Court has observed that the scope of enquiry before the courts was limited to the question: as to whether the grounds for eviction of the defendant have been made out under the Act, and that the question of title of the parties to the suit premises is not relevant having regard to the width of the definition of the terms “landlord” and “tenant” in clauses (j) and (h), respectively, of Section 2 of the Act. Therefore, this pronouncement is of no help to the tenant in present case, in its given facts and circumstances. 15. In Madan Mohan Singh’s case, it has been held that conduct of the party before and after the creation of relationship is relevant for finding out their intention and in absence of any evidence of taking premises on rent, there was no basis for holding that relationship of landlord and tenant was proved. In present case, in reply and evidence lead by him, there is no specific stand of tenant. In present case, in reply and evidence lead by him, there is no specific stand of tenant. Though he has denied relationship of tenant and landlord in the reply but without disclosing the basis for possession of the premises in reference, and at the time of recording of evidence in the Court stand set up by the tenant is that he is owner of the premises in reference, but without placing on record any evidence and, in these circumstances, admission, that he had not paid any rent to respondent since 1993, is an admission on his part that prior to that he was making payment of rent and, therefore, was tenant in the premises in reference, under Medh Ram who had expired in 1993. Therefore, this pronouncement is also of no help to the tenant. 16. Referring pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Santosh Chaturvedi v. Kailash Chandra and another, (2020) 16 SCC 672 , it has been contended that proceeding in the Rent Act is of summary nature, wherein jural relationship of landlord and tenant is to be taken note to the extent it is required for considering such eviction petition and rigor of examining the ownership ought not to be indulged in the manner as is done in title suit unless respondents sets out title to the very rented property which was adverse to that of the landlord. It has been further canvassed that no claim of title was set up by tenant in the reply and, therefore, there was no necessity for the Courts below to enter into the question of title of the premises in reference. 17. Referring pronouncement of this High Court in Om Parkash v. Ganga Ram, Latest HLJ 2001 (HP) 161, it has been contended that merely because name of landlord has not been incorporated in the revenue record with respect to premises in reference, claim of landlord shall not stand extinguished on this ground. 18. Tenant had filed two applications under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. First application No.206-S/6 of 2017 was filed on 3.7.2017 which was dismissed, as not pressed, on 21.11.2018 after filing second application No.53-S/6/2018 on 1.3.2018. In second application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, petitioner had proposed to place on record Jamabandis for the years 1969-70, 1973-74, 1978-79, 1983-84, 1988-89 & 2000-2001, and copy of Musabi. First application No.206-S/6 of 2017 was filed on 3.7.2017 which was dismissed, as not pressed, on 21.11.2018 after filing second application No.53-S/6/2018 on 1.3.2018. In second application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, petitioner had proposed to place on record Jamabandis for the years 1969-70, 1973-74, 1978-79, 1983-84, 1988-89 & 2000-2001, and copy of Musabi. It was claim of the petitioner that these documents were necessary for just determination of the case, as, according to him, after filing of the appeal demarcation of the land took place on behalf of Railway Authorities and possession was found over Khasra No.134 min (new) but not in Khasra No.347 (old). Claim of the petitioner, as set up in cross-examination, was that he himself constructed shop and room on Khasra No.135, whereas documents proposed to be placed on record, in additional evidence, relate to Khasra No.134. Copy of Musabi depicts the Khasra number but not the name of owner or person in possession of the said Khasra number. In these Jamabandis neither name of Medh Ram or Leela Devi or petitioner Ramesh Kumar is reflected in the column of ownership or possession of the premises in reference. Entries in these revenue documents are wrong on the face of it, because on the spot premises occupied by the tenant is existing whereas revenue papers are silent about it. As a matter of fact, these documents have no entry depicting the link of Khasra No.347 min, which has been shown in possession of Medh Ram as per Jamabandi for the year 1964- 65 (Ex. PW-1/B) and, therefore, these documents would have no bearing on the merits of the case and further, though it has been claimed by the petitioner that demarcation took place after filing of the appeal, but all these documents relate to the period prior to the filing of appeal and were in existence at the time of adjudication of the eviction petition and the petitioner has not quoted even a single word about his diligence and care for obtaining these documents and about the cause which prevented him from placing the documents on record during pendency of the eviction petition. Lastly, none of these documents depicts ownership either of the petitioner or the respondent and these documents, thus, do not reflect any right of either party on the premises in reference and, thus, are not relevant for adjudication of the Rent Petition. Lastly, none of these documents depicts ownership either of the petitioner or the respondent and these documents, thus, do not reflect any right of either party on the premises in reference and, thus, are not relevant for adjudication of the Rent Petition. For all these reasons, I find no irregularity, illegality or perversity in the order dated 9.9.2019 rejecting the application filed for leading additional evidence filed by the petitioner. 19. Though there is no written agreement or rent receipt on record, however there is averment made in the eviction petition, substantiated by document Ex.PW-1/B. It has come on record that Medh Ram had expired in 1993, leaving behind his legal heirs, including respondent, and it is also settled that it is not necessary to file eviction petition by all landlords, where they are more than one. Therefore, plea of the petitioner-tenant that in absence of written agreement or rent receipt petition is not maintainable is not sustainable. 20. In view of pronouncements in Sri Chand’s, Satish Kumar’s and Vinod Lakhan Pal’s cases supra, appeal of the petitioner was also not maintainable for non-deposit of arrears of rent within thirty days after passing of order dated 25.11.2016 in the eviction petition and, therefore, also present petition deserves to be dismissed. 21. Petitioner has admitted that originally he is resident of Pathankot (Punjab) and that he had not purchased the land and he was not having any document regarding ownership of the land in reference, with self explanation that land was vacant and he constructed kiosk thereon. However, no such plea was taken in the reply to the eviction petition, rather he has admitted, in cross-examination, that he has not paid any rent since 1993 till the date of his deposition in the Court, i.e. 20.6.2016. 22. Identity of the premises in question was never disputed by the petitioner but he was only insisting for filing latest revenue record. Petitioner has also failed to rebut the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, wherein Medh Ram has been depicted in possession of the premises in reference, by placing on record cogent and reliable material. 23. 22. Identity of the premises in question was never disputed by the petitioner but he was only insisting for filing latest revenue record. Petitioner has also failed to rebut the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, wherein Medh Ram has been depicted in possession of the premises in reference, by placing on record cogent and reliable material. 23. In light of above discussion, and also keeping in view the scope of this Court in interfering with the concurrent findings of the Courts below, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Rent Act, I do not find any perversity, irregularity or illegality in the impugned orders/judgment, warranting interference of this Court in this petition. The Revision Petition is dismissed and disposed of, so also pending application, if any.