Additional evidence can only be allowed if the party seeking to file it proves due diligence and that the evidence was not within their knowledge when the order under appeal was passed. The purpose of procedural law is to advance justice and not to defeat it.

( 1 ) KRISHI Utpadan Mandi Samiti. Khurja (petitioner) is the tenant of Ground Floor accommodation of Building No. 372, Qasba Khurja [district Bulandshahr) (for short called accommodation in question) at the rate of Rs. 450 per month. The accommodation in question, admittedly, belongs to Smt. Prabha Sharma (respondent No. 2), who is the landlady of the said tenant petitioner of the accommodation in question.

( 2 ) SMT. Prabha Sharma (respondent No. 3) filed an application under Section 21 (8), U. P. Urban buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (for short called the Act) praying for enhancement of rent as contemplated under the Act.

( 3 ) THE landlady claims that rent may be fixed by treating valuation of the accommodation in question at Rs. 17,48,000 (i. e. Rs. 1,74,800, annual rent for a year ). Landlady filed report of a chartered Engineer, who fixed the valuation of the building in question was Rs. 12,23,700.

( 4 ) THE tenant/petitioner contested application for enhancement of rent and filed objections.

( 5 ) BOTH the landlady (respondent No. 3) and the tenant (Petitioner) led evidence and the prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 16th January 1998 (incorrectly typed as 16th January 1997 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) (particular page 38 of the Writ Paper Book)held, after discussing evidence and documents on record that valuation of the accommodation In question as indicated by the Deputy Director (Construction) (an employee of the tenant petitioner itself) could be accepted as the correct valuation and held that rent should be enhanced to Rs. 6,075 per month.

( 6 ) TENANT challenged the said order by filing Rent Appeal No. 2 of 1998.

( 7 ) TENANT filed two applications 1. Application praying for additional evidence : application praying for additional evidence (Paper No. 17 Ga) (S. A. 1 copy of which has also been filed Annexure-4 to the counter-affidavit ). Landlady filed objection. Paper No. 23 Ga (Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit ). The said application has been rejected by the appellate court vide impugned judgment dated 26th May. 1998 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) (particular page 15 of the Writ Paper Book ).

( 8 ) A perusal of the Application 17 Ga (S. A. 1) praying for admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage shows that there is not even a whisper as to why the documents annexed along with this application (and sought to be brought on record by way of additional evidence) were not filed before the Prescribed Authority when the said documents were within knowledge and possession of the tenant himself. The Application 17 Ga merely recorded that Prescribed authority had not considered the plan of the building and enhancement of rent was not correct. It is further alleged in the said application that landlady, Smt. Shashi Prabha, was aware of the condition of the accommodation in question as was evident from the document wherein full description of the building has been given and that for appreciation of the Court existing actual condition of the building will be brought on record and for that purpose it was necessary to bring on record these documents. The documents enclosed with the said application 17 Ga are in the shape of correspondence between the landlady and tenant show that house was In a bad shape and that landlady had even received a notice from the local body for dismantling the accommodation in question and in case it was not vacated, it may end up in some accident of which tenant shall be responsible.

( 9 ) IN the said application or otherwise on record there is nothing to show that tenant had exercised due diligence and/or new evidence sought to be brought by way of additional evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time when the order under appeal was passed.

( 10 ) THE appellate authority rejected Application (17 Ga) by means of the Judgment and order dated 26th May. 1998 (