THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 96 of 2011. Shiv Kumar Son of Late Sri Om Prakash …Petitioner. Vs. Additional District Judge and others. …Respondents. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the respondent No. 1. Date January 10, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 344 of 2011) (Urgency Application No. 118 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 20-12-2010 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional District Judge/FTC-II, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 37 of 2008, whereby the application of the appellant-petitioner for leading additional evidence in appeal was rejected. A perusal of the record shows that the landlord Ramesh Kumar (respondent no.2 herein) filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act, 1972 (for short the Act) for release of the disputed property before the Prescribed Authority Dehradun, which was ultimately allowed vide order dated 7-4-2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 11 of 2003, Ramesh Kumar Vs. Shiv Kumar and another. It appears that aggrieved by the order dated 7-4-2008, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and during the pendency of appeal, application paper no. 20-A supported by an affidavit (21- A) was moved to lead additional evidence in appeal. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the first appellate court found that the appellant-petitioner in his objection/written statement had taken a plea that Master Nitin does not reside with the applicant-respondent no.2 but he resides with 2 Mangat Ram. On the other hand in appeal, the appellant intends to say that Master Nitin resides with his father Mangat Ram. In the application (20-A) the petitioner further alleged that the applicant had made additional construction over the disputed property but the appellant has not disclosed as to when such construction was made and what were the constructions. Lower appellate Court after considering the application of the petitioner found that the petitioner-appellant could have brought those facts well in time before the Prescribed Authority. Consequently, the application was rejected as no good ground was made out by the appellant, which gave rise to the present writ petition. The provision of production of additional evidence in appellate court is contained under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. Rule 27(1)(aa) of Order 41 of C.P.C. reads as under:- “(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or” Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed before the Court, I am of the view that the petitioner had utterly failed to make out a case in his favour as provided under Order 41, Rule 27 of the C.P.C. The learned lower appellate Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. I do not find any perversity in the impugned order passed by respondent no.1. The writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed outright. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP Vacation Judge.