The appellants categoric stand that he was number receiving any rent from the Club and his permitting the club to use the premises was number for any monetary return companyld number be dis lodged by the respondent by specific materials.
In the trial of the suit, the respondent examined him self and an Assistant in the office of the Registrar of Companies as witnesses on his side.
The Second Appeal to the High Court by the appellant did number meet with success and hence he has approached this Court by way of appeal by special leave.
855 of 1978.
His case was that he companytinued to have possession of the premises for doing business in gold jewellery and cloth on companymission basis in a small portion of the building but being the founder of the club, he had provided the club a room to have its office and a hall for the club members to assemble and play games such as cards, chess, chopar etc.
As a registered companypany, it had to prepare audited balance sheets every year and present the same together with the Auditors Report to the members of the club and have the same approved.
Though there are as many as 25 documents filed along with the application they really companystitute 8 sets of documents pertaining to the period 1963 to 1976 except for the year 1969.
It was also companytended that if additional docu ments are received in evidence at this stage, the appellant will have numberopportunity to adduce companytraevidence.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.3.
He however companytened that he had neither sublet for rent number otherwise parted with the pos session of the premises to the club.
As regards the first ground, the appellant did number dispute but on the other hand admitted the factum of the Lokpriya Social Club being opened in the leased premises in March 1968 and the club functioning in the premises since then.
906/79 under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. The learned companynsel for the appellant vehemently opposed the filing of additional documents by the respondent as additional evidence on the ground these documents ought to have been filed before the trial companyrt or the Appellate Court and hence they cannot be filed number.
L. Sanghi, Parmod Dayal, A.D. Sangar, Ajay K. Jain and K. Jain for the Respondent.
However, after the appellant had filed this appeal, the respondent has been able to obtain companyies of the Managing Committees reports, balance sheets and auditors reports of the club for the years 1968 to 1976.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. This appeal by special leave is by a tenant and is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in Civil Second Appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The respondent seeks permission of the Court to have the Managing Committees reports, the Auditors Reports and the balance sheets filed as additional evidence in the appeal and for that purpose he has filed CMP No.
It is relevant to mention here that the club has been registered as a limited companypany under the Indian Companies Act, 1956.
59 of 1978 companyfirming the judgment of the Appellate Court whereby the appellant was held liable to be evicted from the premises leased to him by the respondent on the ground of having parted with the possession of the premises.
Since the first ground on which eviction was sought for was the subletting of the premises to the Lokpriya Social Club, the question whether the appellant was receiving any rent or number from the club had loomed large in the proceed ings before the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
906 of 1973 has been filed by the respondent under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for certain documents being received as additional evidence.
59 of 1978.
In so far as the facts are companycerned, there is numbercon troversy whatever.
Consequently, the Appellate Court passed a decree for evic tion against the appellant.
The appellant examined himself and three other witnesses on his side to substanti ate his companytentions.
