R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 9.9.1994 passed by the respondent No. 2 enhancing the rate of rent of the building in question from Rs. 2,100 per month to Rs. 9,000 per month, order dated 24.10.1997 rejecting the application of the petitioner for filing additional evidence and order dated 24.11.1997 passed by respondent No. 1, allowing the appeal of respondent Nos. 2 to 11 and enhancing the rate of rent of the building in question from Rs. 9,000 to Rs. 12,000 per month and dismissing the Appeal No, 28 of 1994 filed by the petitioner.
(2.) Relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that respondent Nos. 3 to 11, for short, "the contesting respondents" filed an application under sub-section (8) of Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act') for enhancing the rate of rent from Rs. 2,100 per month to Rs. 12,258 per month of the building in question which was in the tenancy of the petitioner bank. Application filed by the contesting respondents was opposed by the petitioner denying the facts pleaded by the contesting respondents. Both parties produced evidence in support of their cases. The documentary evidence also included the reports of the valuers. The contesting respondents filed the report of M/s- Agarwal Associates Engineers, which was supported by an affidavit. The said valuer valued the building at Rs. 14,71,000. On the basis of the said report, the contesting respondents claimed an amount of Ra. 12,258 plus amount of house and water as rent. Petitioner also filed the report of its valuer, namely, M/s. Ajit Singh Associates who valued the building at Rs. 4,89,983. On the basis of the said report, the amount of rent comes to Rs. 4,083 per month. After going through the material on the record, the Rent Control & Eviction Officer enhanced the amount of rent from Rs. 2,100 to Rs. 9,000 per month plus amount of house and water tax by its judgment and order dated 9.9.1994. Challenging the validity of the said judgment, both parties, petitioner and the contesting respondents, filed appeals before the appellate authority. Petitioner's appeal was registered as Appeal No. 28 of 1994 while that of contesting respondents as Appeal No. 29 of 1994. During the pendency of the abovenoted appeals, the petitioner filed an application under Section 10 (2) of the Act read with Order XLI. Rule 27, C.P.C. as the petitioner wanted to produce additional evidence, particularly, an affidavit of the Engineer in support of the report which was not filed before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer on account of bona fide mistake of its counsel. The application filed by the petitioner for filing additional evidence was objected to and opposed by the contesting respondents. The appellate court upheld the objection filed by the contesting respondents and dismissed the application for filing the additional evidence holding that by means of the said application, petitioner wanted to fill up the lacuna in its case which was legally not permissible, by judgment and order dated 24.10.1997. The appellate authority, after going through the evidence on the record, allowed the appeal filed by the contesting respondents and enhanced the amount of rent from Rs. 2,100 to Rs. 12,000 per month plus amount of house tax and water tax by its order dated 24.11.1997, hence the present petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the appellate authority acted illegally in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for admission of additional evidence and has also erred in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and in allowing the appeal of the contesting respondents, it was urged that it was on account of mistake of the counsel that affidavit could not be filed before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer. The application filed by the petitioner for admission of additional evidence was, therefore, liable to be allowed as the petitioner should not suffer for a bona fide mistake committed by his counsel.;