Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) The instant petition is directed against the order dated 23.2.2019 passed by the Appellate Court in course of deciding an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Appellate Court has rejected the application 158Ga filed by the petitioners (appellants) for remanding the case to the trial Court exercising power under Order 41, Rule 23A/25 CPC.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are that a release application was filed by the respondent-landlords under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by judgment dated 18.3.2013. Challenging the same, appeal under Section 22 being Misc. Appeal No. 54/2013 was filed by the petitioners. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners filed application for leading additional evidence, which was allowed by the Appellate Court. They also sought amendment in the written statement for bringing on record certain subsequent events and also plea to the effect that the release application is barred by Ist proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. Thereafter, the instant application was filed placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Corporation of Madras Versus M. Parthasarathy, 2018 3 CurLR 365. The Appellate Court has held that the said judgment would not apply to the facts of the instant case and has accordingly rejected the application. The Appellate Court has also observed that the appeal has been pending since the year 2013 and the petitioners have been making repeated efforts to delay the disposal of the appeal.
(3.) In the facts of the case before the Supreme Court, where additional evidence was taken on record by the Appellate Court without granting opportunity to the other side to file evidence in rebuttal, the Supreme Court held that the Appellate Court committed a jurisdictional error. It was also held that in order to enable the parties to prove additional evidence, the Appellate Court had two options, either to remand the appeal to the trial Court or to remit to the trial Court for limited trial on the issue arising in the case in light of additional evidence. It is noteworthy that the instant proceedings arises out of an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, which are summary in nature. These proceedings are decided mainly on basis of affidavits filed by the parties. Since the eviction of the tenant is sought on the ground of bonafide need, therefore, subsequent events are also taken into consideration. The Appellate Court being conscious of the said legal position, permitted amendment in the written statement for bringing on record the subsequent events. The plea to the effect that the release application is barred by the Ist proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 was also permitted to be taken. The Appellate Court, while taking on record the additional evidence, had duly granted time to the other side to file evidence in rebuttal. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have not been granted proper opportunity to lead evidence in support of the amendment in the written statement, nor their case that they were not permitted to file evidence in rebuttal to the evidence filed by the respondent-landlords.;