- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this peti tion filed under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India, petitioner prays for is suance of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20-8-1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 28-9-2000 passed by the Appellate Authority in proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of l972),for short the Act.
(2.) IN the above noted petitions com mon questions of law and facts are in volved. As desired by the parties, they were heard finally at this stage and are being disposed of by this judgment. It appears that in writ petition No. 54814 of 2000, the contesting respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the building in question on the ground of personal need and occupation. On receipt of the notice from the Court of the Court of the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner filed written statement denying the claim of the contesting respondents, parties in support of their cases produced evidence, oral and documentary. After going through the material on record, the release application filed by the contesting respon dents was allowed by the judgment and order dated 20-8-1996 by the respondent No. 3. Challenging the validity of the said order, an appeal was filed before the Ap pellate Authority, respondent No. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, ap plications for amendment of written state ment and for permission to file additional evidence were tiled before the Appellate Authority by the petitioner. The said ap plications were allowed. Ultimately, after hearing the parties and alter perusing the evidence on record, appeal was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 28-9-2000. Hence, the present petition. It has been urged by learned coun sel for the petitioner that the application for permission to file additional evidence-was allowed by the Appellate Authority. The additional evidence was brought on record but the Appellate Authority has acted illegally in not considering the evidence and dismissing the appeal ar bitrarily. On the other hand, learned coun sel appearing for the contesting respon dents submitted that in reply to the ap plication filed for permission to file addi tional evidence, a counter affidavit was tiled rebutting the facts stated in the ap plication under Order XLI Rule 27, C. P. C. It was urged that in view of these facts, it was not" necessary for the Appellate Authority to take into consideration the documents filed by the petitioner at the appellate stage.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the application for permission to file additional evidence was allowed by the Appellate Authority. After allowing the said application, it was obligatory upon the Appellate Authority to take into consideration the additional evidence before passing final orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner. A perusal of the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Authority shows that neither the additional evidence filed by the petitioner nor the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the contesting respondents was taken into consideration by Appellate Authority. It is well settled in law that the Appellate Authority has got jurisdiction to grant per mission to file the additional evidence. It the permission is granted and additional evidence is filed, it becomes obligatory upon the Appellate Authority to take into consideration the additional evidence otherwise the purpose of filing the addi tional evidence is to be frustrated. In view of these facts, without going into other questions involved in the case, this peti tion deserves to be allowed and the case is liable to be remanded to the Appellate Authority for decision afresh. So far as Writ Petition No. 46516 of 2000 is concerned, the facts of the case are substantially the same as of the above noted petition. Learned counsel appear ing for the petitioner referred to arid relied upon the judgment and order of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40456 of 1997, Munna Lal v. 1st Additional District Judge, Jhansi and others, decided on 9-4-1999. By means of the said judgment, this Court issued directions to the Appellate Authority to take into consideration the additional evidence. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted below:- "aggrieved by this order the petitioner, filed an application before the Appellate Court on 10-9-199. 7, Annexure III to the writ petition for taking certain documents on the record. According to the petitioner these documents had been lost and for this reason he could not file those documents earlier and now the docu ment have been searched out and as such they are being filed in appeal. This application has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that the petitioner has not mentioned any ex planation for taking those documents on record. This is incorrect that there was already explanation given in the application. In view of the same order dated 15-11-1997 is hereby quashed. The documents filed alongwith the application dated 10- 09-1997 shall be taken on record. The parties shall appear before the 1st Additional District Judge. Jhansi on 10-05-1999. By that date the respondents may file any documents he wants to file in appeal. This case may be decided expeditiously. ";