Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.: - Petitioner(tenant) is in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution, against the order dated 02.09.2011(P-4) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar exercising the powers under the Rent Act, whereby the application filed by the respondent(landlady) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for examining Rakesh Chopra as witness by way of additional evidence has been allowed.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that respondent(landlady) had filed an ejectment application against the present petitioner(tenant) on the ground of personal necessity of his son Rakesh Chopra by stating that since Rakesh Chopra is not keeping well, therefore, the present shop is required for his business. Apart from this ground, certain other grounds were also taken. However, vide order dated 17.01.2009 the learned Rent Controller, Nakodar dismissed the eviction application on all the grounds including the ground of personal necessity by holding that Rakesh Chopra son of the present respondent(landlady) Urmila Rani has not been examined so as to prove the necessity of Rakesh Chopra and hence no ground is made out for ejectment on personal necessity.

3. Aggrieved against the same appeal, was preferred by the respondent(landlady) and after nearly 2-1/2 years of filing of the appeal, the present application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed for producing Rakesh Chopra by way of additional evidence.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) Rajeshwar Prashar has argued that the learned Appellate Authority has wrongly allowed additional evidence at appellate stage as it does not fall within the ambit of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.R. Mohan Reddy Vs. NET WORK INC. Represented Through MD (2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases 257. It was also argued that nothing prevented Rakesh Chopra son of the landlady from being examined as PW during the proceeding before the learned Rent Controller as the necessity that has been projected is of Rakesh Chopra and it is the case of the respondent(landlady) that Rakesh Chopra was not keeping good health. Learned Counsel has referred to certain documents which are already on record in the case file to show that the averments in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for examining the Rakesh Chopra has been stated that since Rakesh Chopra was not keeping well, therefore, Rakesh Chopra could not be examined earlier. However, a perusal of the documents shows that Rakesh Chopra has been taking medication and undergoing treatment since the year 2001 and, therefore, the ground that has been taken for non examination of Rakesh Chopra during the ejectment application is absolutely false and misconceived.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent (landlady) has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Authority by stating that irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the respondent(landlady) which cannot be compensated in terms of money if she is not permitted to examine Rakesh Chopra as a witness because the learned Rent Controller had dismissed the ejectment application only on the ground that Rakesh Chopra has not been examined in the witness box to prove his personal necessity. Thus, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the learned Appellate Authority had itself observed in para no.6 of the impugned order that the respondent(landlady) had projected the need of her son Rakesh Chopra who was stated to be not keeping good health and had undergone kidney transplant twice. The said ground was also referred by the learned Appellate Authority in the impugned order. Furthermore, in para no.7 of the impugned order the Appellate Authority further o