IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4043 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: July 22, 2009. Kuldeep Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Jagdish Lal ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.4.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar whereby the petitioner-tenant's application to lead additional evidence, has been dismissed. The respondent-landlord filed an ejectment application against the petitioner-tenant, inter-alia, on the ground that the shop in which the landlord is presently running his business is too small and he requires the adjoining shop rented out by him to the petitioner, especially for the reason that the landlord's son has also joined him in the business. The Rent Controller accepted the landlord's plea and has ordered the petitioner's ejectment against which he has preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner moved an application to lead additional evidence comprising photographs to show that the size of the shop already in occupation of the landlord is not small. The learned Appellate Authority has dismissed the application after observing that the additional evidence sought to be produced does not pertain to any subsequent events nor the photographs can prove the size of the shop. The court has observed that the photographs are not required to be brought on record to adjudicate the actual controversy between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that besides the photographs, he has also prayed for appointment of a local commission to carry out the measurements of the shop. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any ground to interfere with the same. Since the respondent-landlord has approached the Rent Controller with a specific plea that the shop in his possession is too small for him to run the business along with his son, it was for the petitioner- tenant to prove that the landlord is in possession of sufficient accommodation. Having failed to lead such an evidence before the Rent Controller, the petitioner cannot be permitted to fill up the lacunae, if any, by way of additional evidence. The learned Appellate Authority is right in observing that if the additional evidence is founded upon the subsequent events or it is really necessary for adjudication of the controversy, then only the same can be permitted to be led. Dismissed. July 22, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge