1 WP-7136.sxw ASN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7136 OF 2010 Shri. R.D.Sutar. ..Petitioner. Vs. Shri. S. B. Lodha. ..Respondent. ...... Mr. P.B.Shah for the Petitioner. Mr. Jaydeep Deo for the Respondent. ...... Coram : A.S.OKA, J. Date :13th October, 2010 PC: 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 The petitioner is the defendant tenant in a suit for possession filed by the respondent-landlord. After a contest by the petitioner, the said suit was decreed and the decree of eviction was passed on the ground of default. An appeal has been preferred by the petitioner in July, 2008 against the said decree. In the pending appeal on 13thJuly, 2010 an application was made by the petitioner under Rule 27 of Order XXXXI of the Code of Civil 2 WP-7136.sxw Procedure,1908 seeking permission to produce additional evidence in the form of three rent receipts allegedly issued by the Respondent in July, August and September, 1992. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected by the learned District Judge. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent invited my attention on Paragraph 3 of the application on which the impugned order has been passed. He pointed out that the circumstances in which the rent receipts were issued are set out in Paragraph 3 of the application. He submitted that the case of the respondent-landlord is that the petitioner has not paid the rent from 31st July, 1992 onwards and the production of the said receipts was necessary to falsify the said case. He submitted that the case made out before the Trial Court was that the rent was paid but due to relations between the parties, the receipts were not issued. He submitted that the three receipts sought to be produced by the petitioner go to the root of the matter and therefore, the production of the said receipts may be allowed. The learned 3 WP-7136.sxw counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. 4 I have given careful consideration of the submissions. The case made out by the respondent landlord in the suit is that the petitioner was in arrears of rent from 31st July, 1992 and therefore, notice of demand dated 6th September,2002 was issued . In the written statement filed by the petitioner, there is a categorical assertion that though the petitioner paid the rent from 1966 onwards till the date of filing of the written statement, the rent receipts have not been issued by the respondent. A similar statement has been made on oath by the petitioner in his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief filed before the Trial Court. Thus, the case sought to be made out in the appeal of the year 2008 arising out of a suit of 2003 that there were three rent receipts issued by the respondent in the year 1992 has no foundation whatsoever in the written statement or in the deposition of the petitioner. On the contrary, the stand specifically taken was that not a single rent receipt was issued by the Respondent. 4 WP-7136.sxw 5 Hence, it is not possible to find fault with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court by which the Appellate Court has declined to grant permission to lead additional evidence. In view of the specific case made out in the written statement and the evidence, such permission could not have been granted. Accordingly, Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE