Shitla Prasad vs Gayatri Devi

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J—A suit for eviction filed before the Small Causes Court was decreed, on the ground that rent of Rs. 300/- per month was not paid by the tenant. Against the said decree, a Rent Revision No. 5 of 2015 was filed. Defence of the tenant that rent was actually Rs. 15/- per month was disbelieved on the ground that original rent receipts were not on record. An application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. has also been filed to take on record the original rent receipts, showing the rate of rent at Rs. 15/- per month. This application has been rejected, and this order is under challenge in this petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole question, which requires consideration in the revision is as to what is the rate of rent, and the original rent receipts is not being taken on record, which has occasioned failure of justice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decision of this Court in Amarawati and Another (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P., (2005) 1 AWC 416 : (2005) CriLJ 755 : (2005) 1 UPLBEC 155 , wherein it has been held that in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment, the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. would be available at the stage of revision, and an additional document can be taken on record.

In the facts of the present case, this Court finds that an application to take on record original rent receipts has been moved with the allegation that original documents were supplied to the previous Counsel, but the same were not filed, and it was only at the stage of revision that this defect could be removed, and therefore, an application to take such additional evidence on record has been moved.

Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that petitioner has been occupying the premises upon a meagre rent, and the proceedings are not being permitted to be concluded. Submission advanced is that in case the additional evidence is to be entertained, then adequate compensation should be allowed.

Considering the above, it would be appropriate to direct the Revisional Court to entertain the additional evidence filed by the defendant petitioner, provided the petitioner pays a cost of Rs. 10,000/-, within a period of two weeks from today, to the plaintiff landlord. This is necessary, as the sole contention for determination in the revision is as to whether the rate of rent is Rs. 15/- or Rs. 300/- per month, and a just determination of the cause can take place, if the relevant document in this regard is taken on record. The reasons assigned in support of the application that such documents were given to the previous Counsel, who failed to file it, does not appear to be mala fide, as non-filing of such documents was to the disadvantage of the petitioner himself. In case the application is not allowed, it may result in failure of justice for the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petition succeeds, and is allowed. The order impugned dated 28.2.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Varanasi, is set aside. Application to admit additional evidence is allowed upon payment of cost, quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has given a further undertaking that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment, as such, the Revisional Court concerned shall proceed with disposal of revision No. 5 of 2014, immediately after deposit of cost, above, by fixing short dates, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.