The court affirmed that inherent powers under Section 151 CPC allow for additional evidence if it aids in just adjudication, despite the deletion of Order 18, Rule 17A.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.

Petitioner herein is the respondent-tenant before the ld. Rent Controller, Chandigarh in Rent Petition No.248 of 2018 filed by the landlord M/s APS International Pvt. Ltd. (respondent herein). He is aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2024 (Annexure P10) as passed by ld. Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby, application of the landlord to lead additional evidence was allowed by granting two opportunities.

2. To avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as landlord and tenant.

3. Petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to Chandigarh, for ejectment of the tenant was filed by the landlord company in May 2018 on the ground of non-payment of rent and the personal necessity of the landlord-company. Tenant opposed the petition. Necessary issues were framed. During its evidence, the petitioner examined PW1 Ravi Kant Sawhney, Deputy General Manager, through whom the petition was filed; and one Keshav Kumar, Accounts Manager of the landlord as PW2, who were duly cross-examined and then evidence was closed by the landlord through statement of its counsel. Harbir Singh, partner of the tenant, tendered his affidavit Ex.RW1/A as his examination-in-chief. It was at this stage that the landlord moved an application seeking permission to lead additional evidence. The tenant opposed the same, but ld. Rent Controller has allowed the same by way of the impugned order.

4.1 Assailing the aforesaid order, it is contended by ld. counsel that Order 18, Rule 17A of the CPC, as was existing earlier, has since been deleted and though section 151 CPC empowers the Court to allow additional evidence, but this can be allowed only if the proposed additional evidence either assists the court in clarifying the evidence led on the issues or leads to a just and effective adjudication.

4.2 Ld. counsel contends that in the present case, PW2-Keshav Kumar, Accounts Manager, had earlier been examined, as the authorized person on behalf of Sh. Amit Gupta, Director of the landlord-company, who in turn had been authorized by the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 04.09.2019 to file any suit or to make statement before any Court and to represent the company. Ld. counsel contends that the application has been moved so as to examine Amit Gupta, Director of the landlord-company only to fill-in the lacuna in the evidence of the landlord, after the tenant had already disclosed its evidence by tendering the affidavit of RW1- Harbir Singh.

4.3 Ld. counsel has referred to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 875, besides another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 530 (SC).

5.1 Refuting the aforesaid contentions, ld. counsel for the landlord (respondent herein) defended the impugned order and submits that it is Sh. Amit Gupta, the Director of the landlord-company, who was duly authorized by way of the Board Resolution dated 02.07.2024 to appear as a witness in the present case. It is further contended that Sh. Keshav Kumar, the Accounts Officer, who was earlier examined as PW2, could not be in a position to prove the bona fide necessity of the landlord and that it is only the director of the company i.e. Amit Gupta, duly authorized by board resolution, who will be in a position to prove the ground of bona fide necessity of the landlord-company.

5.2 It is further pointed out that application for additional evidence was moved immediately after tendering of the affidavit by Harbir Singh-tenant and that he had not been cross-examined by that time and therefore, the defence of the tenant was not disclosed.

5.3 Incidentally, counsel for the respondent-landlord has also relied upon the case of K.K. Velusamy (supra), which has earlier been referred by counsel for the tenant (petitioner herein).

6. I have considered submissions of both the sides an