JUDGMENT
A.P. Chowdhri, J.
1. This is landlord’s revision against dismissal of appeal by the Appellate Authority, whereby the order of dismissal of the ejectment petition by the Rent Controller was affirmed.
2. Briefly stated, the material facts are that Shop-cum-Flat No 24 in Sector 18-C, Chandigarh previously belonged to one M/s. Baij Nath Asharfi Lal, and one Mr. Walia, who was carrying on trade under the name and style of Panchsheel Emporium, was the tenant therein. The Estate Officer, Chandigarh Adminstration, issued a notice to the landlord as well as the tenant under Section 9A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, to show cause why the premises be not resumed as unauthorised construction i.e. a structure had been made covered with G. I. sheets in the backyard of the ground floor of the said building, in contravention of the restrictions imposed under the relevant rules. It further’ appears that the then landlord obtained an order of eviction against Mr. Walia and possession was taken by the
landlord in May 1979. Thereafter the building was sold by M/s Baij Nath Ashraf Lal in favour of Kuljit Singh Sehgal, the present petitioner. By rent note Exhibit A-2, dated October 12, 1979. the building was let out to Messrs Gupta Agencies, the present respondent, with effect from
October 12, 1979, at the rate of Rs. 1,600/- per month. The petitioner applied for ejectment of the respondent on various grounds by making application dated June 5,1981. The only surviving ground is that the respondent had constructed an unauthorised structure on the backyard of
the ground floor with bricks and cement without the written permission of the petitioner, and thereby the respondent had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. The petition was contested. The Rent Controller framed issue No. 3 as follows:-
“3. Whether the respondents have materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premise ? If so, effect ? OPA.”
On behalf of the landlord, the petitioner appeared as AW-1 and examined his father-in-law Major S. S. Sethi as AW-2.” who was at the material time attorney of the petitioner, and Harbans Singh. Section Officer of the office of Estate Officer, who had inspected the premises in the course of his duties on December 24, 1981, and January 7, 1982, and had noticed the unauthorised structure. On behalf of the respondent-tenant, Sat Parkash, partner of the firm, appeared as RW-1 and examined Kanwarjit Singh, a neighbour, as RW-3. Their testimony was to the effect that the structure in question had been in existence since the time of the previous occupant Panchsheel Emporium and the premises were in the same state in which the same were let out to the present tenant.
3. On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the backyard was already covered when the premises were let out to the respondent, and the respondent was thus not guilty of making any addition or alteration materially impairing the value or utility of the premises. The ejectment petition was accordingly dismissed by order dated March 21, 1983.
4. The reasons which prevailed with the learned Rent Controller in coming to the above conclusion were :-
(i) It was pleaded that the tenant had made unauthorised structure (which is what had been alleged before the present tenant came in) as distinguished from the construction of a room with brick walls and roof of G.I. sheets.
(ii) The petitioner admitted that the backyard was covered when it was let out to the respondent.
(iii) The petitioner’s attorney S. S. Sethi also admitted that the structure existed in the backyard at the time of commencement of tenancy in favour of the present tenant.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the landlord preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. An application for additional evidence was made before the Appellate Authority seeking to produce five documents, to be referred to a little later. The main ground for the additional evidence was that some of the documents, namely, documents No. 1 and 2 could not be produced due to inadvertance in the trial Court and documents No. 3 to 5 came into existence as a result of subsequent developments and the same had a direct hearing on the question whether the present structure was a continuation of the old one or it had made de novo by the present tenant. The learned Appellate Authority did not decide the application for additional evidence separately but dealt with the same while disposing of the appeal itself. It was held in connection with the application for additional evidence that no case for leading additional evidence was made out from what has been stated in the application made for the purpose in terms of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On merits, the Appellate Authority highlighted the admissions made by the landlord and his father-in-law-cum-attorney and affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller. Hence this revision.
6. After giving careful consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel, I am of the view that the Appellate Authority committed a material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the application for additional evidence by a cryptic order, I do not, therefore, propose to deal with the merits of the revision petition. I would confine the discussion only to the question of additional evidence. Section 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act’) empowers the Appellate Authority to make such farther enquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller during the course of the hearing of the appeal. Learned counsel for both the parties are agreed that even though the Code of Civil Procedure as such does not apply to the proceedings before the Authorities under the Rent Act, the principles contained in the various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable. It is, therefore, not disputed that the application for additional evidence was required to be considered in accordance with the principles underlying Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. The contention of Mr. M. L. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered under clause (b) of Rule 27(1) of Order 41, which empowers the appellate Court to allow additional evidence “for any other substantial cause”. In this connection, learned counsel submitted that three of the documents came into existance after the decision by the Rent Controller and could not, therefore, be produced. He submitted that’ in order to do complete justice between the parties, the Court is expected to take subsequent developments into consideration. The contention of Mr. V. K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, as that documents No. 1 and 2 were in existence to the knowledge of the landlord and no case had been made out that those documents could not be produced after the exercise of due diligence. With regard to the remaining documents, it was submitted by Mr. Jain that they did not contain any admission on the part of the tenant and the admission, if any, made by the Assistant Estate Officer in the written statement could not be held binding on the tenant. Mr. Jain also submitted that additional evidence sought to be produced appears to have been created by the landlord in connivance with certain officials of the Estate Office and these papers appear to have been shuffled in and they cannot possibly prejudice the rights of the tenant.
8. At this stage, a word may be said about the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence. Document No. 1 is a letter dated June 25, 1979, from S. S. Sethi, father-in-law and attorney of the landlord to the Assistant Estate Officer informing him that the G. I. sheets in the backyard had been removed. Document No. 2 is dated December 11,1981. This is in reply to Assistant Estate Officer’s notice dated October 28, 1981, to the effect that the alteration in the backyard had been made afresh by the tenant Document No. 3 is copy of CWP No. 1341 of 1983, dated May 16, 1983 filed by the tenant in the High Court challenging the order of demolition dated September 24, 1982, passed by the Estate Officer with regard to the alleged unauthorised construction in the backyard The challenge was broadly on the ground that the unauthorised construction had been in existence since before 1972 and the same could not be demolished under section 15 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, being more than six months old. Notice of motion was issued so the respondents, who were the Chief Administrator and the Assistant Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration; as well as the landlord. Written statement was filed by the Assistant Estate Officer. The written statement is document No. 4 and in para II it was stated that the illegal construction previously made had been demolished and the present unauthorised construction had been made by the tenant recently. The last document No. 5 is order of the Division Bench dismissing the tenant’s writ petition with the observation that admittedly the construction objected to was unauthorised. The landlord was willing to get the same demolished. The petitioner in the writ petition was only a tenant and he could not be permitted to resist the demolition of the unauthorised construction.
9. From the foregoing facts, the scope of controversy in the present case is basically confined to the fact whether the unauthorised construction had been made by the present tenant or it was the same which had been made by the previous tenant and it was never removed at any stage before the induction of the present tenant. The Authorities under the Act are required to take into consideration subsequent developments in appropriate cases.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the application of the landlord for additional evidence is allowed, the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal is set aside and the case remanded to the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, for either obtaining the additional evidence itself or for sending the same to the Rent Controller for recording of additional evidence on behalf of the landlord. The Authorities will thereafter afford reasonable opportunity to the tenant to lead such evidence in rebuttal as they may like, whereafter the appeal shall be decided afresh according to law. The parties shall bear their own costs in this Court.
11. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, on February 7, 1992.