(Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Dr. Hari Datt Pathak v. Smt. Sanjeeda Begum (now represented through legal heir Mohd. Asheem

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. 1 Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1164 of 2025- Dr. Hari Datt Pathak Versus Smt. Sanjeeda Begum (now represented through legal heir Mohd. Asheem Siddiqui) & Anr. Ashish Naithani J.

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.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 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 2 Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1164 of 2025- Dr. Hari Datt Pathak Versus Smt. Sanjeeda Begum (now represented through legal heir Mohd. Asheem Siddiqui) & Anr. Ashish Naithani J. 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 existence much prior to the initiation of the release proceedings and could have been filed before the Prescribed Authority.

12. No explanation was furnished as to why such documents were not produced earlier; therefore, the basic requirement of Order XLI Rule 27 regarding necessity or due diligence was not satisfied.

13. It is contended that allowing additional documents at the appellate stage has the effect of reopening the entire proceedings and indirectly permitting the Respondent to improve her case by adding a new factual foundation, which is impermissible.

14. The Petitioner asserts that the Appellate Authority misconstrued the legal position and ignored the restrictions under the Act, which ultimately caused prejudice to the Petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.03.2025, allowing the Respondent's application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, is liable to be set aside.

15. Per Contra, learned counsel for the Respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the Appellate Authority has exercised its discretion in accordance with law. It is argued that the documents sought to be filed constitute relevant material having a direct bearing on the adjudication of the release 3 Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1164 of 2025- Dr. Hari Datt Pathak Versus Smt. Sanjeeda Begum (now represented through legal heir Mohd. Asheem Siddiqui) & Anr. Ashish Naithani J. application. When the appellate court considers that additional evidence is necessary for a just decision, the same can be permitted.

16. It is further submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the tenant is attempting to delay the adjudication of the release proceedings, which have been pending since 2012, and is raising procedural objections merely to prolong his occupation of the premises. It is contended that the appellate court is empowered to consider any material necessary for proper adjudication, and therefore, the order allowing additional evidence is neither illegal nor perverse.

17. It is further submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory and not appellate, and that interference is warranted only where there is manifest illegality, patent perversity, or a jurisdictional error, none of which is disclosed in the present case. It is urged that the Appellate Authority has recorded specific satisfaction that the documents sought to be brought on record are relevant and necessary for a just and proper adjudication of the appeal, and, therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.

18. Upon due consideration, this Court finds that the controversy revolves around the legality of the order dated 27.03.2025, by which the Appellate Authority allowed the Respondent’s application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for bringing additional documents on record during the pendency of the Rent Control Appeal.

19. At the outset, it is necessary to observe that the proceedings under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, are special proceedings governed by a self-contained mechanism. Rule 22, framed under Section 34 of the Act, specifically regulates the manner in which an appeal under Section 22 is to be decided. The Act does not make the Code of Civil Procedure applicable in its entirety; only limited application of CPC principles can be invoked to supplement procedural requirements where the Act is silent. 4 Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1164 of 2025- Dr. Hari Datt Pathak Versus Smt. Sanjeeda Begum (now represented through legal heir Mohd. Asheem Siddiqui) & Anr. Ashish Naithani J.

20. From the record, it emerges that the documents sought to be introduced were already in existence at the time when the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was pending before the Prescribed Authority.

21. The Respondent has not explained why such documents could not be produced before the original forum despite having ample opportunity. The requirement of Order XLI Rule 27 is not merely that the party wishes to produce new documents, but that such material must be shown to be either unavailable despite due diligence, or necessary for enabling the appellate court to pronounce a judgment.

22. The scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory in nature and does not permit re-appreciation of facts like a regular appeal. However, where the subordinate authority exercises jurisdiction not vested in it or ignores statutory conditions, interference becomes necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice. ORDER In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 27.03.2025 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 03 of 2021 (Dr. Hari Datt Pathak v. Smt. Sanjeeda Begum & another), permitting production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 5 Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1164 of 2025- Dr. Hari Datt Pathak Versus Smt. Sanjeeda Begum (now represented through legal heir Mohd. Asheem Siddiqui) & Anr. Ashish Naithani J. 6 Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1164 of 2025- Dr. Hari Datt Pathak Versus Smt. Sanjeeda Begum (now represented through legal heir Mohd. Asheem Siddiqui) & Anr. Ashish Naithani J.