APS International Pvt. Ltd vs Harbir Automobiles

Mandeep Pannu, J

Thee present civil revision petiition under Article 227 of the Constitution off India has been filed by thhe petitioner–landlord, M/s APS International Private Limited, assailing the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, wherebby the application moved by the petitioner for leaading additional evidence was diismissed.

Briiefly stated, the facts of the caase are that the petitioner/landllord filed an ejectmeent petition seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant, M/s Harbir Automobiles, frrom the tenanted premises formiing part of Plot No. 181, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh. The grounds pleadded were non-payment of rent and bona fide personal necessity. It was specifiically pleaded that the petitiooner company requirred the demised premises for constructing a warehouse, as the premises form part of a single line of godowns separated by inner fabricated waalls, and the petitionner intended to demolish the inner walls and construct a larrger warehouse for its business purposes. The reespondent filed written statemment denying the alleeged bona fide requirement and pleaded that the petitioner already had large buildings in the same plot which couldd serve its need.

Issues were framed and both sidess led evidence. After conclusionn of the evidence off the parties, the petitioner mooved an application for additioonal evidence, submiitting that certain other premisess owned by it in the same plot were in a dilapidated condition and unfit for use, andd in order to substantiate this facct it sought to produce a technical inspection report prepared by an industrial buildding expert and to examine the said expert. The application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that the plea soughtt to be introduced was beyond the pleadings, as noowhere in the ejectment petition had the petitioner pleaded that the alternate premises were unsafe or unfit for use.

Thee learned Rent Controller, after hearing the parties, dismissed the application holdding that the ground now raised was an afterthought, being beyoond the pleadings, and that additional evidence cannnot be permitted to set up a new case. It was further observed that the petitioner’s counsel had argued orally that the demised premisses had become unsafe, whereas in the application it was alleged that the alternate premises were in dilapidated condition, thereby creating a serious contradiction in the stand of the petitioner.

Asssailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that thee learned Rent Controller wroongly recorded that the petitiooner wanted to lead evidence to show that the demised premises were unsafe, wherreas in fact it was the alternate premises which were stated to be dilapidated. It is submitted that this misreading vitiates the impugned order and that in any case the additional evideence was necessary for proper addjudication of the issue of bona fide requirement.

I have considered the submissionns and carefully gone through the record. The coree issue for determination is not whether the learned Rent Controller correctly noted whether the report pertained to the demised premises or the alternate premisses, but whether such additional evidence was at all necessaryy or permissible. It is well settled that additional evidence can only be allowed to clarify or supplement existing pleadings and issues, and not to introduce an altogether new plea. In the present case, the ejectment petition does not conttain any averment thhat the alternate premises owned by the petitioner are in dilapidaated or unsafe condittion. No issue was framed to that effect. The attempt now madee to produce a technnical report and examine an expeert on that point is clearly an effort to go beyond the pleadings and to set up a new case which was never projectedd in the original petition. Merely because the learnedd Rent Controller mis-described the property in its order does not render the dismissal illegal, for the substantive reason for rejecting thee application is that the proposeed evidence is beyond the scopee of pleadings and isssues.

Once the pleadings themselves do not raise the plea of the alternnate premises being unsafe, the petitioner cannot be permitted to lead evidence on that aspect. Allowinng such evidence would prejuddice the respondent and upset the settled principlee that no party can travel beyonnd its pleadings. The learned Rent Controller has, therefore, rightly declined the prayer for additional evidence.

In view of the above discussion, I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugnedd order dated 25.08.2025 warrannting interference in the exercisee of supervisory juriisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petitionn is accordingly dismissed.

Pennding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.