record a translated copy (in Hindi) of Ex.P1. It is submitted by him that if it is a license, then question of sub-tenancy does not arise because the possession always remain with the licensor. It is further argued that the landlord did not give any date in his eviction petition or replication of entering the possession by the second respondent but he has disclosed it in his cross-examination while appearing as PW5 that “ for the first time, respondent No.2 came into the room in dispute on 25.06.1997”. Simultaneously, he has also stated in his crossexamination that “ I had seen the father of respondent Harish Chander. He was in occupation of property in dispute and running his business”. These two statements run contrary to each other because the second respondent has submitted that the case set up by him is that his father Som Nath was the tenant and in possession of the demised premises. He died in the year 1988 and thereafter, he is running the business of bardana in his place, whereas the case set up by the landlord is that the possession has been delivered to the second respondent by the first respondent. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Appellate Authority has committed a serious error while dismissing his application for additional evidence despite the fact that the contents of the documents, which were sought to be produced on record, have been discussed. In this background, at the first instance, it is submitted by him that the application filed by the second respondent/petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC may be allowed and the matter may be remanded back to the learned Appellate Authority to give an opportunity to the second respondent/petitioner to prove the documents out of which some documents are the documents of judicial record and some are of the official record.
