Judgment Reserved on: 28.10.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 13.11.2025 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1164 of 2025 (Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)

Dr. Hari Datt Pathak --Petitioner Versus Smt. Sanjeeda Begum (now represented through legal heir Mohd. Asheem Siddiqui) & Anr. --Respondents Presence:-

Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Hemant Singh Mehra, learned counsel for the Respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present writ petition, registered as Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1164 of 2025, has been instituted by Dr. Hari Datt Pathak, the tenant of premises situated at Bara Bazar, Mallital, Nainital. The Petitioner calls in question the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority/District Judge, Nainital, in Rent Control Appeal No. 03 of 2021 (Dr. Hari Datt Pathak v. Smt. Sanjeeda Begum & another), by which the Appellate Authority allowed the Respondent’s application seeking permission to bring additional documents on record.

2. The challenge is laid under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to the aforesaid appellate order, which arises out of release proceedings instituted under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, wherein the landlady sought release of the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement.

3. A release application under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed in the year 2012 by the landlady, seeking eviction of the Petitioner from the premises on the ground of bona fide requirement. The Petitioner filed his written statement in 2013.

4. In the year 2016, the Respondent landlady moved an application seeking amendment of the release application so as to incorporate additional grounds, including a plea relating to the condition of the building and the proposed reconstruction. The Prescribed Authority allowed the amendment by order dated 01.07.2016. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2200 of 2016, in which this Court, by judgment dated 19.09.2019, set aside the order dated 01.07.2016.

5. Subsequently, the release case proceeded, and an order was passed on

26.11.2021 by the Prescribed Authority allowing the release application.

6. The Petitioner thereafter filed Rent Control Appeal No. 03 of 2021 before the District Judge. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was moved by the Respondent seeking to introduce additional documents. The Appellate Authority allowed the application through the impugned order dated 27.03.2025, which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

7. The Petitioner contends that allowing additional evidence at the appellate stage is contrary to the provisions governing the appeal under the U.P. Act and the settled legal position. Hence, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 27.03.2025 and consequential reliefs.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority committed a jurisdictional error in allowing the Respondent’s application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC during the pendency of the Rent Control Appeal. It is argued that proceedings under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 are special proceedings and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply in their entirety.

10. Reliance is placed on the statutory scheme to contend that the appeal under Section 22 of the Act, 1972, is a limited appeal confined to examining the correctness of the findings of the Prescribed Authority on the basis of the material already available on record.

11. It is further submitted that the documents sought to be introduced through the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC were already in e