Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1090 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
preferred an appeal under Section 22 of
the Act challenging the judgment passed
by the Prescribed Authority which was
numbered as Rent Appeal No. 119 of
2008.
8. During pendency of the appeal,
additional documentary evidence was
also brought on record on behalf of the
petitioner. A request was made by the
landlord that documents brought on
record at the stage of appeal were old
documents and were misplaced and
mixed up with the old unused papers
and not traceable and, therefore, it could
not be brought on record while the
proceedings were pending before the
Prescribed Authority. The said
documents were refused by the appellate
court primarily on the ground that the
petitioners failed to file the partnership
deed which was very essential and,
therefore, document relating to
partnership with Sanjeev Misra was not
acceptable and thus the contention of
learned counsel for the petitioners is
that the same were refused illegally.
Another application was moved on
behalf of the petitioners under Section
34 read with Rule 22(f) of the Rules
framed under the Act bringing to the
notice of the Court that the partnership
deed was also on record of the trial
court and, therefore, the court has
wrongly rejected the application for
taking the documents on record.
However, this application was once
again rejected by the appellate court on
17.3.2009. However, the appellate court
required both the contesting parties to
submit their written submissions and
thereafter dismissed the appeal vide
judgment and order dated 28.5.2009.
Both the judgments are impugned in the
instant writ petition.
9. The submission of learned
counsels appearing for the landlordpetitioners
is that both the courts below
have erred in law and also principles
laid down by the Apex Court as well as
this Court in its various decisions taking
lop sided view in favour of the tenants
on wholly irrelevant consideration.
Besides refusal to accept documents
relating to partnership with Sanjeev
Mishra on one hand and taking an
adverse view for want of those very
documents are evidently erroneous.
10. The respondent nos. 1 and 2
have contested the release application.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits as well
as written submissions have been filed
by respective counsels. Two judgments
of the courts below have been supported
by Ms. Shikha Singh and Nikhil Kumar
Advocates. It is submitted on behalf of
the tenants that both the courts below
have come to conclusion that the
landlord does not require the
accommodation in question and need is
not bonafide therefore the writ petition
is liable to be dismissed.
11. Learned counsels on behalf of
the petitioners have challenged each and
every findings of the two courts and
have laid emphasis that once the
Prescribed Authority had taken into
consideration and given findings on the
partnership deed, the appellate court
could not have refused documents who
is the last court of fact. However,
affidavit of partner Sanjeev Misra was
already on record and that was sufficient
to substantiate that some printing
business was carried out in the
partnership of Sanjeev Misra and
petitioner no. 2. Besides the claim of the
petitioner no. 1 that on every day he has