J.C.Gupta, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed for the quashing of the order dated 23.4.1997 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby petitioner's application for bringing additional evidence on record of revision filed under Section 18 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. hereinafter called as the Act, has been rejected.
(2.) The facts relevant in brief are that one Jitendra Prasad Jain initiated proceedings before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by moving an application for the release of the accommodation in question, which is a residential building, stating therein that tenant-petitioner No. 1 has ceased to occupy the tenanted accommodation as he has taken up a permanent residence in Delhi and has allowed the premises to be occupied by petitioner No. 2. who is not a member of his family. The proceedings were contested by the petitioners. By the order dated 13.3.1987 respondent No. 2 declared the accommodation in question as vacant by holding that there was a deemed vacancy under Section 12 of the Act and released the same in favour of the landlord for his personal requirement. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed Revision No. 24 of 1997 under Section 18 of the Act. which is still pending before respondent No. 1.
(3.) During the pendency of the said revision, the petitioners moved an application for admitting affidavit of petitioner No. 2 as additional evidence whereby certain facts were sought to be brought on record to show that the landlord need for the disputed accommodation was not bonafide and his application for release was liable to be rejected. The said application was opposed by the landlord on the grounds that while exercising powers under Section 18 of the Act, the revisional court has no power to admit additional evidence and that the petitioners have no right to contest the release application or to lead any evidence on the said question. Respondent No. 1 by the impugned order rejected the said application of the petitioners.;