- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 21-9-95,11-9-95 and 16-9-95 (Annexures I, II and HI) passed by respondent No. 1 in revision.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that an allot ment order was passed on 10-1-86 in favour of Surya Nath Pandey, respondent No. 3 in respect of House No. C/124/109 showing that peepu alias Subichar Dey is landlord of the property in question. THE petitioner filed an application to recall the said order. THE petitioner also filed a revision No. 81 of 86 against the allotment order. THE petitioner's application to recall the said allotment order was rejected on 13-6-86. THE petitioner preferred a revision No. 216 of 86 (sub sequently numbered 100 of 1990) against the said order. THE petitioner also moved an application for adducing additional evidence in revision No,81 of 86. The dispute was as to whether the house No. C/124/100 was really the house No. C/124/109 and that there was a vacancy when the application for allotment was made by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The contention of the petitioner was that Deepu alias Subichar Dey was not the owner of the House No. C/124/109 and therefore the respondent committed fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining the al lotment order. The petitioner is alleged to have filed certain documents viz. , assess ment list and certain other papers along with applications. These application were rejected by respondent No. 1 on 10-7-95 and 11-9-95. Ave heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Court has taken the view that in a revision under Section 18 additional evidence cannot be accepted. This view is incorrect. The revisional authority has jurisdiction to accept the additional evidence if the petitioner could not get an opportunity to do so before the Rent Con trol and Eviction Officer and such docu ments are necessary for correct decision of the case.
(3.) IN view of the above, the order dated 21-9-95 and 11-9-95 (Annexures I and II) are hereby quashed. The revisional authority will accept the documents sub mitted by the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed that two revisions filed by him namely, Revision No. 81 of 86 (Now numbered Revision No. 100 of 1990) and 216 of 86 be decided together as both the revisions relate to the question of validity of the allotment order. The Court has rejected the application on 16-9-1995. It would be appropriate that both the revisions may be heard and dis posed of together on the same day.;