Badami Devi (Smt) and anr. Vs. Ambuja Raghavan (Smt)

- [k. venkataswami and; g.b. pattanaik, jj.] - rent control and eviction - subsequent events - on facts, held, high court erred, while dismissing appellant tenant's revision petition, as also in dismissing her application under order. 41 rule. 27 seeking permission to produce additional evidence and to bring to notice of court certain vital subsequent events - matter restored to file of small causes judge - karnataka rent control act, 1961 (22 of 1961), sections. 21(1)(h) and 50 -- the learned small causes judge, after hearing the case, allowed the eviction petition. pending revision, the appellants preferred several separate applications under order 41 rule 27 cpc, seeking permission to produce additional evidence and to bring to the notice of the high court certain vital subsequent events. consequently, we restore hrc no. 100 of 1990 on the file of xiiith additional small causes judge. the learned small causes judge will also give liberty to the landlord to file rebuttal evidence, if any, to the new material produced by the appellants herein. - supreme court held that high court ought to have allowed production of additional evidence failure of which resulted in vitiating its order......evidence and to bring to the notice of the high court certain vital subsequent events. unfortunately, the high court while dismissing the revision, has dismissed the applications under order 41 rule 27 cpc, by stating that no prima facie material has been filed to appreciate the applications without discussing the materials placed before it. on a perusal of the materials placed before the high court, we are of the view that the high court should have allowed the petitions to produce additional evidence and to bring on record the subsequent events. the failure to do so, in our view, on the facts of this case, vitiates the order under appeal. accordingly, we set aside the order dated 16-4-1998 of the high court. we are also of the view that the additional evidence now produced and the subsequent events sought to be brought on record must be considered by the learned small causes judge. accordingly, we set aside the judgment dated 22-7-1994 in hrc no. 100 of 1990 on the file of xiiith additional small causes judge. consequently, we restore hrc no. 100 of 1990 on the file of xiiith additional small causes judge. we permit the appellants tenant to produce additional evidence and also to bring on record subsequent events. the learned small causes judge will also give liberty to the landlord to file rebuttal evidence, if any, to the new material produced by the appellants herein. as the matter is an old one, we direct the learned xiiith additional small causes judge to expeditiously dispose of hrc no. 100 of 1990, preferably within six months from today.4. the appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.