The court emphasized the necessity for establishing the unavailability of evidence and the due diligence required for the admission of additional evidence in appellate court proceedings.

Anil Kumar, J. –

Heard Sri Triloki Nath Yadav, learned counsel for petitioners and perused the record.

2. Facts in brief of the present case are that respondent/Smt. Savitri Soniya filed an application under Section 21(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 registered as P.A. Case No. 11 of 2001 in the Court of 11 of 2001 in the Court of Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sadar, Faizabad, allowed by order dated 13.03.2014, challenged by filing Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2014 (Firm Bal Govind Kishori Lal v. Smt. Soniya) before respondent No. 1/Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Faizabad.

3. During the pendency of appeal, an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC moved by the petitioner in order to file certain orders/documents rejected by order dated 19.11.2015.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner while challenging the impugned order dated 19.11.2015 submits that the appellate authority erred in dismissing the application moved by the petitioner under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC for taking the additional document on record as they are necessary for disposal of the controversy involved in the case.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that while rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC thereby not taking of the additional evidence on record they would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money, so the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

7. Section 34 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, reads as under: -

"Section 34 - Power of various authorities and procedure to be followed by them: - (1) The District Magistrate, the prescribed authority or any[appellate or revising authority] shall for the purposes of holding any inquiry of hearing [any appeal or revision] under this Act have the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908), when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters namely,--

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

(b) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(c) inspecting a building or its locality, or issuing commission for the examination of witnesses or documents or local investigation;

(d) requiring the discovery and production of documents;

(e) awarding, subject to any rules made in that behalf, costs or special costs to any parts or requiring security for costs from any party;

(f) recording a lawful agreement, compromise or satisfaction and making an order in accordance therewith;

(g) any other matter which may be prescribed."

8. Further, Rule 22 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 provides as under: -

"Rule 22 - Powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Section 34(1)(g)]--- The District Magistrate, the prescribed authority or the appellate authority shall, for the purposes of holding any inquiry or hearing any appeal or revision under this Act, shall have the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters namely,--

(a) the power to dismiss an application, appeal or revision for default and to restore it for sufficient cause:

(b) the power to proceed ex parte, and to set aside, for sufficient cause, and order passed ex parte:

(c) the power to award costs and special costs to any successful party against an unsuccessful party:

(d) the power to allow amendment of an application, memorandum of appeal or revision:

(e) the power to consolidate two or more cases of eviction by the same landlord against different tenants:

(f) the power referred to in sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to make any order for ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the authority concerned."

9. Clause(b) of Section 34(1) proved for receiving evidence on affidavits and