Civil Revision No.4750 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4750 of 2007 Date of Decision:-November 17,2009 Vinod Kumar Mittal ...Petitioner Versus Girdhari Lal Saroa ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjay Majithia, Advocate for the respondent. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. The matrix of the facts culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal, of present petition filed by Vinod Kumar Mittal son of Om Parkash-petitioner-tenant (hereinafter to be referred as “the tenant”) and emanating from the record, is that originally, Girdhari Lal Saroa son of Amar Chand-respondent-landlord (hereinafter to be referred as “the landlord”) filed the ejectment petition against the tenant, invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ((hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) from the shop in question on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity etc. 2. The tenant contested the ejectment petition and filed the written statement, inter-alia stoutly denying the claim of the landlord. 3. Having completed all the codal formalities, the Rent Controller accepted the rent petition and directed the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord within three months vide order dated 18.3.2006. The appeal filed by Civil Revision No.4750 of 2007 2 the tenant was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 2.8.2007. 4. Having lost the legal battle, the tenant has preferred the present petition for setting aside the impugned orders of the Courts below. That is how I am seized of the matter. 5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the tenant has invited the attention of this Court to the application dated 2.11.2006 for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 read with section 151 CPC filed by the tenant and urged that the Appellate Authority, instead of deciding the same has, dismissed his main appeal, which has caused a great prejudice to his case. 6. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the landlord has very fairly admitted that in these circumstances, the matter has to be remitted back to the Appellate Authority after setting aside the impugned order dated 2.8.2007 for deciding the matter afresh after disposal of the application for additional evidence. 7. Otherwise also, having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record of the case and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, as the impugned order dated 2.8.2007 of the Appellate Authority rendered in Rent Appeal No.1 of 3.4.2006, cannot legally be sustained, therefore, the present petition deserves to be accepted, for the reasons mentioned here-in- below. 8. The perusal of the record of the Appellate Authority would reveal that the tenant has moved an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC on 2.11.2006, which was entertained by the Appellate Authority and Civil Revision No.4750 of 2007 3 case was adjourned to 11.11.2006 for reply of this application and arguments. On 11.11.2006, reply to the application for additional evidence was filed, copy thereof was supplied to the opposite side and the appeal was adjourned to 19.12.2006 for arguments in the main appeal as well as in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Thereafter, the appeal was repeatedly adjourned for arguments and ultimately, instead of deciding the application for additional evidence, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the main appeal vide impugned order dated 2.8.2007. In other words, the application for additional evidence remained undecided. 9. The tenant has inter-alia pleaded in the application that all the shops of Girdhari Lal bearing property No.B.7.460 and Girdhari Lal, Rakesh Dutt and Munish Dutt are shown to be owners of the same, which are in possession of various tenants, out of which Mittal Karyana Store stands vacated, which is now in possession of the landlord. In order to corroborate the above said facts, the tenant wanted to place on record the assessment register of property No.B.7.460 and affidavit of ejected tenant Jaswinder Kumar Mittal and STD/PCO bills issued in favour of Rakesh Dutt son of the landlord. Thus, the tenant prayed for production of these documents by way of additional evidence. Keeping in view the sum and substance of the nature of claim of the landlord of bonafide requirement, the relevancy of the documents sought to be produced in order to decide the real controversy between the parties, could not be ruled out in this context. 10. Be that as it may, to me, as the Appellate Authority has decided the main appeal without adverting to/deciding the application Civil Revision No.4750 of 2007 4 for additional evidence of the tenant, thus, it has committed inherent irregularity and patent illegality in this respect. The Appellate Authority ought to have first decided the application for additional evidence before deciding the main appeal. Hence, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority cannot possibly be maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of hearing of appeal before the Appellate Authority, the present petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 2.8.2007 of the Appellate Authority is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to Appellate Authority for deciding the application of the tenant for additional evidence before disposing of the appeal on merits. 12. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances and nature of ground of personal necessity of the landlord, the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, it is made clear that nothing observed in this order would reflect in any manner on the merits of the case, as it has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition. 13. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 22.12.2009. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 17.11.2009 Judge AS