Rejendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by Deva Singh, landlord, against the order of the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, dated Aug. 4, 1976 dismissing his application for ejectment.
(2.) Briefly, the facts are that Deva Singh gave the rented land on lease to Balbir Singh tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 30 vide rent note dated April 22, 1972, Exhibit A. 1. He filed an application for ejectment on the ground that he required the and for his business. The application was contested by the tenant, who controverted the aforesaid allegations. The learned Rent Controller held that the landlord required the rented land for his own business. Consequently, he ordered ejectment of the tenant. He went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority who reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the application for ejectment. The landlord has come up in revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority.
(3.) The only question that arises for determination is as to whether the landlord required the promises for his business. The learned Appellate Authority after considering the evidence came to a conclusion that he did not require it for his business. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to challenge the finding on the ground that the Appellate Authority in appeal recorded the statement of his client which he could not do. He vehemently argues that the Appellate Authority could not till in the lacuna by recording the statement of the petitioner in support of his contention he places reliance on Rattan Chand Jain Vs. Charan Singh, 1978 (1) R. C. J. 273 I am out convinced with this contention o. the learned counsel. The learned Appellate Authority in order to clarify certain matters recorded his statement. It cannot be held as a matter of principle that the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to take the additional evidence on the record. Even in Rattan Chand Jain's case (supra) it has been held that the Appellate Authority could record additional evidence for similar reasons as given in Under 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure. Rattan Chand Jain's case (supra) is distinguishable. In the present case, the counsel has not been able to show that the Appellate Authority recorded the statement of the petitioner to fill in the gaps. It is in evidence that the petitioner is owner of a saw-mill and land measuring 7 marlas behind that was lying vacant. In case he wants to start his own work he can do so either in the saw-mill or in that plot of the land. In my view, the conclusions arrived at by the Appellate Authority are correct and there is no scope for interference with the same.;