The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Rent Act and the justification for rejecting additional evidence in a lease dispute.

Amit Rawal, J.

The appellant-defendants are aggrieved of the concurrent findings of facts and law, whereby suit for possession by way of ejectment of 1/2 portion of ground floor and 1/2 portion of basement of the demised premises, namely, SCO No. 26, Sector 11, Urban Estate, Panchkula has been decreed. The defendants have been further directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises. Further, plaintiffs have been held entitled to recover Rs. 7500/- from the defendants, which the plaintiffs have already paid in Municipal Committee as house tax. The plaintiffs have also been held entitled to mesne profits @ Rs. 18,000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till the handing over possession of the demised premises.

2. Mr. Pawan Kumar, leaned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Abhimanyu Batra, appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendants, in support of the grounds of appeal, has raised manifold submissions, which are enumerated herein below:-

(a) That the suit, ex-facie, was not maintainable as the parties are governed as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed as there is relationship of landlord and tenant and the remedy, if any, for the respondent-plaintiffs is to seek ejectment, in case any ground of ejectment is made by invoking the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short "1973 Act");

(b) The respondent-plaintiffs were served with a show cause notice dated 10.1.1989 of having occupied the showroom without obtaining the occupation certificate in contravention of the Haryana Urban Development Authority (Erection of Building Regulation), 1989, whereas the suit had been filed on 13.1.2006. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of 1973 Act shall apply only to the building, construction of which has been completed on or after the commencement of this Act for a period of ten years from the date of its completion. Thus, the suit for possession seeking ejectment by invoking the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, ex-facie, is not maintainable;

(c) At the appellate stage, indulgence of the Lower Appellate Court was sought by moving an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC to place on record documents, Annexures A-1 and A-2 by way of additional evidence, but the same has erroneously been dismissed/rejected as Annexure A-2 is resumption order dated 8.12.2006, which shows that the allottee had occupied the SCO without taking occupation certificate from the office. Thus, the documents Ex.P20 and Ex.P21 dated 19.3.1996 granting approval of fresh building plan to the respondent-plaintiffs-subsequent transferees, would not give a cause of action to file this suit;

(d) The documents Ex.P18 onwards have not been proved in accordance with law. Mere exhibition of the documents would not dispense with its proof. In support of his contentions, relied upon the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court rendered in Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia v. Subodh Mody, 2009(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 249. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of PW-2, a Sub Divisional Clerk, Estate Office, HUDA, Panchkula, who, to a specific question in cross-examination admitted that Ex.P18 to Ex.P21 were not mentioned in the record vide which he was summoned nor he had been given any authorisation letter to appear in the witness box, much less the documents are not attested, but this aspect has not been noticed by the Courts below;

(e) The order declining the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC has been assailed by taking the aid of provisions of Order 43, Rule 1A CPC, therefore, it is a fit case for remand to the Lower Appellate Court or to the trial Court for seeking the report, vis-a-vis additional evidence as the same goes to the root of the cause and would help the Court while adjudicating the lis;

(f) Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, both the parties had filed appeals as the respondent-plaintiffs were not satisfied with the grant of mesne p