Case: SATYAVATI RAMPRASAD RUIA Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD

4. The appellant had sub-let the premises to the respondent in the year 1984 for a period of 10 years. Thereafter, in the year 1989, the respondent preferred an R.A.N. Application No. 79 of 1989 for fixation of standard rent. Since the respondent failed to pay the contractual rent, the appellant preferred an interim notice seeking payment of rent or deposit of the same. The interim notice was partly allowed, vide order dated 20.12.2003, directing the respondent to deposit the arrears. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court against the order dated 20.12.2013. The High Court directed the Trial Court to decide the application for fixation of standard rent within three months. The appellant challenged the order dated 06.10.2005 before this Court. This Court disposed of the petition vide order dated 07.09.2006, by a consent order whereby the respondent had agreed to deposit the entire amount of arrears with interest @ 15% per annum from August, 1992 to March, 2000. The appellant was allowed to withdrawn 50% of the amount. The Trial Court was also directed to decide the application for fixation of standard rent within three months from the date of the order.5. Pursuant thereto, the Trial Court disposed of the application and fixed the standard rent at Rs.60,175/-. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC to amend the affidavit in reply filed in the revision application. The Court of Small Causes, vide order dated 20.08.2016, observed that the appellant wanted to bring on record the letter dated 20.06.2007 received by one of the representatives of the respondent with regard to the reason of filing the standard rent application by the respondent. It was noticed that the appellant had not adduced any evidence while the application was being decided and, thus, bringing this information on record would not serve the purpose. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2016 the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court, vide impugned order, has disposed of the writ petition holding that there is no error in the view taken by the Court of Small Causes. Hence, the appellant is before us by way of special leave petition.

Reasoning: 7. We find that the courts below have dismissed the application of the appellant under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC and refused to take the aforesaid document on record on the ground that the same is irrelevant for fixation of the quantum of standard rent. That may not be correct. In any case it can be examined at the stage of trial. At this stage some document is produced and we find that this document may have a bearing relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties and all the requisites of Order 41, Rule 27 CPC stand satisfied inasmuch as this document was not in the possession of the appellant at the time of trial of the petition and came to the notice of the appellant at the stage of the pendency of the revision petition.