Ms. Usha Mehra, J.

( 1 ) BY this application, the petitioner wants to place on record the three rent receipts alleged to have been executed by Smt. Surjit Kaur, the previous landlady from whom the present respondent purchased the house in question in 1979. According to the petitioner, he was a tenant of Smt. Surjit Kaur, who permitted him to use the premises for residential-cum-commercial purposes somewhere in 1973-74.

( 2 ) IN the beginning of 1974, landlady issued the receipts confirming the fact that the tenanted premises was allowed to be used for residential-cum-commercial purposes. The fact that the premises was let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes was specifically pleaded before the Additional Rent Controller. However, since these receipts could not be traced out, therefore, these could not be placed at the time of filing the written statement or at the time when the evidence was adduced or subsequent thereto. Even after Usha. Dhir, the respondent herein, purchased this premises, the petitioner had been using the same for residential-cum-commercial purposes. This fact was in the knowledge of the respondent. Till the revision petition was filed in 1990 these receipts were not traceable. However, during the pendency of the revision petition, the present Counsel Mr. H. S. Dhir was of the firm view that at the time of inception of tenancy there must be some writing/receipt /correspondence between the landlady and the petitioner. On being stressed by the Counsel, the petitioner took the matter seriously and searched out his old record in the house and business premises. On the advice of the Counsel when the record was searched, three rent receipts beside other letters and bills were found which the petitioner in turn handed over to the lawyer and consequently present application. That the non-production of documents was neither intentional nor deliberate,

( 3 ) THIS application has been contested by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner, when he appeared in the witness box as R. W. 1 oh 12th December, 1989, made a categorical statement that no agreement was executed with Smt. Surjit Kaur the previous owner and that the said landlady/owner never issued any rent receipt. The receipts which have now been purported to have been issued by the erstwhile landlady are, therefore, forged and fabricated documents. If, however, these alleged receipts were issued by previous landlady, then these were in possession and under the control of the petitioner. He did not try to trace these receipts. He cannot take advantage of his negligence, and, therefore, at this stage additional evidence should not be allowed.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. In order to decide this application we have to look to the provisions of Rule 27 (1) of Order 47 which are reproduced as under : 0. 41 R. 27 (1) of Civil Procedure Code. " (I) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if- (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred TO has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence such evidence was not within the knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. "

( 5 ) THE perusal of the above rule makes it clear that the additional evidence can be adduced only when the same was refused by the Trial Court or when the petitioner establishes that in spite of exercising due diligence, this evidence was not within his k

Click Here to Read the rest of this document