Uttarakhand High Court
(Under Article 227 Of The Constitution ... vs Smt. Sanjeeda Begum (Now Represented ... on 13 November, 2025
2025:UHC:10064
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.
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.
2025:UHC:10064
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
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.
2025:UHC:10064
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.
2025:UHC:10064
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.
2025:UHC:10064
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.
SHIKSHA
BINJOLA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822f
bd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B52
83D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2025.11.14 18:33:32 +05'30'
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
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.
2025:UHC:10064
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.
