The Revisional Court may entertain additional evidence under the inherent powers of the Court if essential for doing justice between the parties, even though Order XLI Rule 27 C. P. C. is not applicable.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and prused the record.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12-1-2001 passed by XVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Revision No. 137 of 1999.

( 3 ) THE respondents filed SCC suit No. 95 of 1991 against the petitioner for his ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages on the ground of subletting and changing the user of the premises. The petitioner contested the suit denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Trial Court decreed the suit for ejectment as well as arrears of rent and damages. Aggrieved with the above judgement and decree the petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 137 of 1999 before District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. The revision was transferred to the Court of XVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar for disposal.

( 4 ) DURING pendency of the revision the petitioner moved an application paper No. 30-C before the Revisional Court under Order XLI Rule 27 C. P. C. for permission to adduce additional evidence and to file papers per list 31-C. The respondents filed objection against the above application on the ground that Provisions of Order XII Rule 27 C. P. C. 1 are not applicable to revision and there was also no sufficient ground for allowing the additional evidence.

( 5 ) LEARNED Additional District Judge on hearing the learned counsel for the parties held that provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 C. P. C. are not applicable to revision proceeding, but, however, additional evidence may be adduced in a revision under S. 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act under the inherent powers of the Court. He further held that additional evidence sought to be adduced related to question of fact and would amount recording a fresh finding, which was beyond the purview of revisional jurisdiction. With these observations he rejected the application vide impugned order dated 12-1-2001

( 6 ) THE above order has been challenged in this writ petition.

( 7 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, as narrated above. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that assuming that provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 C. P. C. are not applicable to the revisional proceeding additional evidence may be admitted in the exercise of inherent power of the Court. He placed reliance on Division Bench case of this Court in Virendra Singh Kushwaha v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Agra (1996) 2all. Rent Cas. 108 : (1996 All. LJ 1827 ). It was held in the said case that in the exercise of inherent power of the Court in its revisional jurisdiction under S. 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act may admit the additional evidence. Thus, there is no bar of taking additional evidence by the Revisional Court in exercise of its power under S. 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It was further held in the said case that it is also settled law that the additional evidence urged to be allowed to be admitted must be relevant to decide the real controversy and the Court must feel that the admission of the same is required in the interest of justice i. e. it must meet the requirements of provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 C. P. C.

( 8 ) IT was held in the case of Smt. Gayatri Devi v. Additional District Judge/special Judge (E. C. Act), Etawah, (1992) 1 All Rent Cas, 148 that under inherent powers of the Court for doing justice between the parties, the revisional Court exercising its jurisdiction under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, has also the power to take additional evidence for doing complete justice between the parties.

( 9 ) THE learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 C. P. C. cannot be pressed into service for admitting additional evidence in revision under S. 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. He placed r