CR No.1686 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. *** CR No.1686 of 2011 Decided on 07.04.2011. Narinder Kumar --Petitioner vs. Shri Sat Narayan Mandir through Trust Committee Hindu Panchayati Dharamshala and another --Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.S.N.Chopra,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Ramesh Kumar,Advocate,for the respondents Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 01.3.2011 passed by learned Rent Controller, Rajpura, by which an application filed by the tenant/petitioner for leading additional evidence by way of producing on record sanctioned site plan of the construction raised on the demised premises, order of sanctioning the site plan, two statements of the parties in dispute and an order of the Civil Court has been dismissed. The application was filed by the tenant at the time of arguments of the eviction petition after noticing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the landlord that the construction has been raised on the demised premises without the permission of the CR No.1686 of 2011 2 Municipal Council and is in violation of municipal bye-laws. To overcome that argument, the petitioner moved an application immediately on 21.1.2011 in order to bring on record the additional evidence but the learned Rent Controller dismissed his application on the ground that the petitioner cannot be allowed to fill up the lacunae as he had already closed his evidence on 12.3.2010 and before that, ample opportunities were given. It was also observed that earlier also, he had filed an application for amendment of the written statement which was declined by a detailed order dated 16.7.2010 and the application was filed only to delay the proceedings in the eviction petition which was pending since long. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the application for additional evidence was filed at the stage of arguments but he submits that even at that stage, application for additional evidence could be allowed if the evidence which is sought to be produced goes to the root of the case. He has relied upon following decisions of this Court reported as Jeeto @ Manjit Kaur Vs. Union of India 2008 (2) PLR 147; Chandgi Vs. Mehar Singh & Ors 1998 (2) Civil Court Cases 280 (P&H); Mam Raj Vs. Smt.Sabiri Devi & Ors. 2002 (2) Civil Court Cases 109 (P&H); Basant Raj Vs. Kaushal Kishore 2005 (3) Civil Court Cases 269 (P&H); Charan Singh Vs.Ajit Singh 1999 (Suppl) Civil Court Cases 458 (P&H); Raju Sharma Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors,1999 (2) Civil Court Cases 85 (P&H), and two more judgments i.e. one of Orissa High CR No.1686 of 2011 3 Court reported as Alekh Pradhan and others Vs. Bhramar Pal and another, AIR 1978 Orissa 58 and other of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported as Shivsahay Vs. Nandlal and others AIR 1989 Madhya Pradesh 40. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that there is no corresponding pleadings regarding the evidence which is being sought to be produced on record, therefore, in the absence of the pleading, no evidence can be looked into. He has submitted that during the course of arguments when he had cited certain judgments, then at that stage, this application was filed by the petitioner in order to place on record the documents which were well within his knowledge, therefore, the same cannot be allowed to be taken on record in the garb of additional evidence as the petitioner's evidence was already closed on 12.3.2010. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. In one of the judgments in Gurdial Singh and others Vs. Mam Chand and others 2011 (1) RCR (Civil) 690, I have already held that even if the documents were within the knowledge of appellants, Appellate Court can still allow it to be produced on record in terms of Order 41 Rule 27 (1) (aa) of CPC if the document is not created or manufactured for the first time after the decision of the suit i.e. any official document whose authenticity is not in dispute and is capable of assisting the Court to take final decision in respect of the CR No.1686 of 2011 4 dispute between the parties. In this case, the documents which are sought to be produced on record are not coming from the custody of the petitioner rather the two documents are coming from the custody of municipal council which are the sanctioned site plan and order of sanctioning the site plan and the other documents are part of judicial records. It is alleged that the respondent had given the land in dispute measuring 3 kanals 12 marlas comprised in khewat khata No. 535/1074 and khasra No. 39//3/12, 24//2/1, situated within the municipal limits of Rajpura to the petitioner for setting up a petrol pump vide registered rent note dated 19.8.1981 up to 31.3.2001. The landlord had filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 (for short,'the Act') for eviction of the tenant,inter-alia, on the grounds of non-payment of rent, subletting and material impairment of value and utility of the demised premises by raising construction of the building. One of the issues framed by the learned Rent Controller is 'whether the respondent has impaired the value and utility of the property in dispute'? In order to prove the fact that value and utility of the demised premises is not impaired by the petitioner because it was let out by the landlord to him for the purpose of setting up a petrol pump for a period of 20 years as a result of which the petitioner had raised the construction over the demised premises after getting the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee. The question of impairment CR No.1686 of 2011 5 of value and utility of the demised premises would of course be seen by the learned Rent Controller by taking into consideration the entire evidence available on record and the respondent can show whether the evidence which is to be produced on record by way of additional evidence can be taken into consideration or not. However, the question which is to be decided by this Court is about the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller as to whether he can allow or disallow the application on the ground of delay. In this regard, the consistent view of this Court is that additional evidence can be allowed even at the stage of argument i.e. till the Court becomes functuous officio, meaning thereby till the Court signs the judgment, the application can be entertained. In view thereof, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller in dismissing the application only on the ground that he is trying to delay the proceedings, is unsustainable because the petitioner is trying to produce on record those documents which have not been manufactured by him and are coming from the custody of the authorities either judicial or quasi judicial. Hence, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside . The parties are left to bear their own costs. 07.04.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge CR No.1686 of 2011 6