AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
The petitioner is an appellant/tenant in the proceedings under Section 22 of the U.P. Rent Control Act No. 13 of 1972, wherein, he has questioned
the judgment rendered by the prescribed Authority in Rent Control Case No. 5/2014 ‘Smt. Durga Singh Rathore vs. Gopal Singh Manral and
others’ preferred under Section 21(1)(a). At the stage of Appeal the tenant/petitioner is said to have moved an application under Order XLI Rule
27 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 08.08.2018 praying for to bring on record the municipal assessment of 1950-51 and 1969-70, as well as, copy of
the sale deed, by virtue of which the tenant/petitioner claims to sustain right vested over the property i.e. a tenement in question.
This application was opposed by the respondent/landlord, wherein, it was contended that for the purposes of deciding the 21(1)(a) application and
subsequent appellate proceedings the document, which was sought to be brought on record, were not at all relevant by invoking Section 34 read with
Rule 22 of the Act No. 13 of 1972. By virtue of Section 34 very limited provisions have been made applicable in the proceedings under Act No. 13 of
1972, more particularly, as defined under Rule 22 of the Rules. The said provisions contained under Rule 22 do not contemplate applicability or Order
XLI Rule 27 in an Appeal under Section 22 of Act No. 13 of 1972. The application, which has been preferred though the present petitioner has
invoked Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure but considering the backdrop to the effect that in an earlier set of civil proceedings which has
ultimately culminated up to the second appellate stage in SA 2328/1984, the relevance of the assessment of 1950 or the sale deed of which was being
sought to be brought on record has already been determined. Even let us presume that under Sub Rule (f) of Rule 22 where the provisions of Section
151 of Code of Civil Procedure has been made applicable and the same could be invoked to bring the documents on record, in that eventuality also, the
application preferred by the petitioner should have been brought within the four corners of the parameter required under Order XLI Rule 27 for
bringing those documents on record.
Admittedly, in the instant case the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) is the proceeding, which has been initiated as back as in 2014, which was
contested on merits by the petitioner and ultimately the same was allowed by the judgment dated 30.09.2016 against which the Appeal has been filed.
There is no logic assigned in the pleadings raised in the application as to what were the circumstances under it that despite of due diligence having
been exercised by the petitioner, these documents could not be placed on record before the prescribed Authority. No such pleadings is forthcoming in
the application preferred by the petitioner invoking Order XLI Rule 27 read with 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, there was no such pleading
and the finding has been accordingly recorded by the impugned order dated 29.08.2018 while rejecting the same.
On scrutiny of the same, this Court does not find any anomaly in the impugned order coupled with the fact that the document sought to be brought
on record being the documents of much prior in time even prior to the institution of the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) and since the proceedings
under Section 21(1)(a) being a summary proceeding they have to be decided based on the material and evidence by way of affidavits, which has been
filed by the parties.
Consequently, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.