Poonam Srivastav, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri K. M. Garg, learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner and Sri R. K. Mishra and Sri Neeraj Agrawal, counsels for the respondent.
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition filed challenging the order dated 22.1.2009 whereby the revisional court has admitted additional evidence. Facts giving rise to the dispute is that S.C.C. Suit No. 51 of 1996 was filed on 20.5.1996, on the ground of arrears of rent against the petitioner and also claiming damages for use and occupation. Contention of the plaintiff/landlord is that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable in respect of the accommodation in question, petitioner has committed default in payment of rent and respondent society is running primary school and junior high school in the name and style of Chameli Devi Kanya Vidya Mandir. A written statement was filed by tenant/petitioner on 21.7.1997 stating that he has not committed default in payment of rent and also provision of Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable and the society is not running school. Sri K. M. Garg, has submitted that on 17.7.1998 one Munna Lal Bansal claims himself to be Secretary of the Society and was examined as P.W. 1. He submitted that photostat copy of original registration certificate of the society as well as original recognition certificate of the said school is with him. In spite of it, the original was not filed. It is also contended that original lease deed was also not brought on record. The Judge, Small Causes Court, Bulandshahr, dismissed the suit vide judgment and order dated 23.4.2007 holding that provision of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable in the instant case and there was no default on the part of petitioner. This conclusion was arrived at on account of the reason that only photostat copies purporting as registration of the society and recognition of the school were filed and only the photostat copies were not admissible in evidence.
(3.) THE landlord/respondent preferred S.C.C. Revision No. 16 of 2007 in the Court of the District Judge, Bulandshahr on 14.5.2007. An application for admitting additional evidence, i.e., original registration and recognition certificate as well as original lease deed, was moved before the revisional court on 14.11.2008. This application was objected by petitioner by filing an objection on 19.11.2008. THE court below allowed additional evidence to be taken on record vide order dated 22.1.2009. Challenge of the counsel for petitioner to this additional documents admitting in evidence in revision are manifolds, one that these documents have been brought on record after 12 years of institution of suit and more than one year after filing of revision. Next ground of challenge is that this is only to fill up lacuna and other ground is that reason given in the application for adducing evidence at the revisional court stage is not one that is covered within any of clauses of Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C.;