SUDHIR CHANDRA VERMA , J. - (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 5 -9 -88 and 4 -4 -1990 rejecting his application for admitting additional evidence in proceedings under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. The petitioner filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent as also for eviction of respondent No. 2 on the ground that he made material alterations without permission which has diminished the value of the property. The suit was contested on the ground that the rent was remitted by Money order which has been refused and the shop in dispute was taken on rent from its earlier owner/landlord with effect from 25 -10 -1960. The allegations with regard to material alterations in the shop were also denied. As regards the fact of sub -letting, it was alleged that initially the business of selling denatured spirit was carried under the name and style of M/s. Ram Gopal Lalit KumaR.Ram Gopal being the father -in -law of respondent No. 2 had no son and as such he was carrying on business with the permission and knowledge of the earlier landlord. After the death of Ram Gopal, Lalit Kumar, respondent No. 2, is the sole proprietor and is doing the business.
(2.) THE trial court dismissed the suit and recorded a finding that there was no subletting as the business was being carried on in the name of Ram Gopal Lalit Kumar and Lalit Kumar was not the adopted son of Ram Gopal. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act being S.C.C. Revision No. 61 of 1987.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, a partnership deed executed between Ram Gopal and Lalit Kumar as the adopted son of Ram Gopal was discovered and a photostat copy of the partnership deed dated 30 -3 -1974 was sought to be filed before the revisional court. The application was rejected by order dated 5 -9 -1988 on the ground that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. are not applicable in proceedings under the provisions of Small Causes Court Act and a photostat copy of a deed is not substantial evidence and the same can not be admitted in evidence. It has further been stated that later on a certified copy of the partnership deed also became available and a fresh application dated 14 -3 -1990 was moved to bring on record certified copy of the partnership deed dated 30 -3 -1974. This application was also rejected by order dated 4 -4 -1990. Both the orders dated 5 -9 -1988 and 4 -4 -1990 have been impugned in the present writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned VI Additional District Judge was not correct in holding that merely because the provisions of Order 41 Rule 2, C.P.C. are not applicable, the additional evidence cannot be admitted. It has also been argued that the learned Judge was not correct in holding that since the earlier application for admission of copy of the same document was rejected by order dated 5 -9 -1988, the application for bringing on record the certified copy of the same document would be barred by the principles of res judicata. The learned counsel urged that the learned Judge in exercise of his inherent powers could take on record the additional evidence and subsequent events.;