The appellate authority cannot allow a party to adduce additional evidence to fill in the lacuna in the evidence already adduced.

N.K.Kapoor, J.

1. This revision petition is against the order of the appellate authority allowing the respondents application for adducing additional evidence.

2. The respondent filed an application Under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute on the ground of non payment of rent.

3. The petitioner-tenant put in appearance, filed written statement and took up the plea that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the rent petition is not maintainable. On merit, it was stated that the respondent is neither the owner nor the landlord of the demised premises. Even the rate of rent was disputed and it was stated that the premises in dispute was, in fact, meant for economically weaker section for which monthly instalment payable to Chandigarh Housing Board is Rs. 70/- per month and so the rate of rent is Rs. 70/- per month.

4. The Rent Controller framed three issues i.e. existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; maintainability of the petition; and the effect of non payment of rent as claimed by the landlord. The Rent Controller decided issues No. 1 and 3 together and held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and so the question of payment of rent does not arise. Issue No.2 was also decided against the landlord.

5. Before the appellate Court, the landlady filed an application to adduce additional evidence to prove her ownership as well as to adduce further evidence with regard to the alleged rent note executed by the tenant in her favour. This application was accepted by the appellate authority vide order dated 4.10.1995. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner terming it to be wholly illegal and void.

6. Challenging the validity of the order, counsel for the petitioner argued that the so called rent note has already been adduced in evidence and so the present attempt to lead further evidence in respect of this document to is nothing but an attempt to fill in the lacuna which is not envisaged by Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This document was in the possession of the respondent and so could lead all possible evidence to prove the contents now sought to be raised. Even the respondents plea that she be permitted to prove her ownership is also wholly unwarranted in the circumstances of the case. The Act envisages determination of dispute between the landlord and tenant and no further. Thus, even if the respondent is owner, though not accepted, such a finding will not bring her within the definition of landlady and so the permission granted by the appellate authority is unsustainable in law.

7. Justifying the impugned order, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the appellate authority has ample power to grant such a prayer in terms of Section 15(3) of the Act and hence reference to Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the counsel for the petitioner was wholly misplaced. The power conferred upon the appellate authority Under Section 15(3) of the Act is without any Limitation i.e. in case the appellate authority is of the view that any further inquiry is essential, it can do personally or through the Controller. Examined in the light of this statutory provisions, the prayer granted is just and appropriate in the circumstances of the case. To support his contention, reliance was placed upon the decision in case reported as Rajinder Kumar v. Basheshar Nath, 1965 Cur. L.J. (Punjab) 638 and Bachan Singh and Ors. v. Amar Singh and Ors., 1978(1) R.C.R. 161.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the Rent Controller as well as the impugned order passed by the appellate authority. A perusal of the order of the Rent Control reveals that the tenant in his written statement has specifically challenged the locus standi of the respondent-