R. H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Instant petition arises out of proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for short 'the Act'.
(2.) PETITIONERS pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13-8-1996 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for permission to file additional evidence in the appeal arising out of the said proceedings. Notices on behalf of respondent No. 1 have been accepted by Learned Standing Counsel and Mr. V K. Goel, Advocate, has filed caveat on behalf of respondent No. 2, the contesting respondent. A counter- af fidavit has also been filed on behalf of the said respondent. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly stated that respondents No. 3 to 11 are pro forma respondents and it is not necessary to serve the notices of this petitioner upon them. Therefore, notices are not being issued to the said respondents. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, I have heard this petition finally at this stage.
(3.) THE relevant facts of the case given rise to the present petition are that the release application filed by respondent No. 2 was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by its judgment and order dated 7th Oc tober, 1995. The petitioners feeling ag grieved by the said order, filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Sec tion 22 of the Act. During the pendency of the said appeal they made an application for permission to file additional documentary evidence before the Appellate Authority. The application filed by the petitioners was opposed by the landlord, the respondent No. 3. The Appellate Authority by means of the impugned order dated 13-8-96 dismissed the said application. As stated above, the present petition has been filed challenging the validity of the order dated 13-8-1996. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that the appellate authority has failed to exercise the jurisdic tion vested in it by rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. It has been urged that Appellate Authority has ample power to admit additional evidence documentary or oral. The Appellate Authority erred in law in dismissing the said application strictly construing the provisions of the Order XLI, Rule 27 C. P. C. He submits that the power conferred upon the Appellate Authority under Section 22 read with Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is much wider than power of appellate court under Order XLI, Rule 27 C. P. C. In support of his sub mission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision in Bhola Nath v. Additional District Judge, Gonda and others, 1985 (1) ARC 445.;