1. ' This appeal has been filed challenging the orders passed by the Rent Controller in Rent Case No,320 of 1993. The case of the respondent is that he is lessee of K.M.C. Having taken on lease the plot in dispute in Commercial Area, Liaquatabad, Karachi through a duly registered lease-deed on 31-3-1991. Thus the opponent/appellant is his tenant. It is an admitted position that the opponent/appellant was the tenant of previous occupant Mst. Zahida Begum and the rate of rent was Rs,400 per month. The present respondent had served notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, on 29-5-1991 and in consequence thereof the appellant started paying the rent to the respondent. It is in the rent application that for two months, December, 1991 and Janpary, 1992 the rent was remitted through money order which was received by the applicant. However, the rent case was filed on 21-4-1993 on the ground of default in payment of rent since February, 1992.
2. ' The present appellant contested the rent case and has contended that he had been depositing the rent amount in Miscellaneous Rent Case No,119 of 1992 from the month of March, 1992 regularly in the name of both the claimants of ownership and thereafter in compliance with the order passed by the Court in another rent case between the same parties being Rent Case No,72 of 1991 he started depositing the rent in consequence of the rent order passed by the Court. His case further is that this was being done by him because there was a dispute of title between the present respondent and the previous landlady Mst. Zahida Begum.
3. ' On these pleadings of the parties, the respondent filed his own affidavitin-evidence and produced certain documents, whereas the appellant also filed his affidavit-in-evidence and produced the documents. In view of above the only issue that was settled is with regard to commission of default in payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the arguments of the parties has allowed the rent case directing the appellant to vacate the premises in question within 60 days.
4. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. ' I have heard Mr. S. Ishtiaq Ali Kanhorvi, the learned counsel appearing for appellant. His main contention is that in the earlier rent case, the respondent was examined on 6-2-1993 and in his cross-examination on the said date, he admitted that rent uptodate was paid. He has further placed reliance on the other two documents filed alongwith the present appeal which show that the rent was paid by the appellant in the said two rent cases. From these documents the learned counsel has contended that the appellant had been paying the rent and, therefore, the question of default does not arise.
6. ' Miss Rashida Siddiqua, the learned counsel appearing for respondent has vehemently contested the appeal. She has referred to various documents placed on record in the rent cases before the Rent Controller wherein the documents which are in the form of receipts of deposit of rent before the Rent Controller show that the same were done in Rent Cases No,119 of 1992 and 72 of 1992 on 31- 3-1992 and 31-5-1992 respectively for one and three months (Exhs. 0/13 and 0/14). No other documents was produced before the Rent Controller to substantiate the contention of the appellant that the rent had been paid uptodate. She has further opposed the production of these documents in this appeal on the ground that no document which is attached with the memorandum of appeal can by itself become evidence in proceedings. She has relied on analogy of provisions of Order XLI, rule 27, C.P.C. Which reads as under: ."27 Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.---(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court.
7. But if--
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or
(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be Produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause. The Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined.
(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an, Appellate Court the Court shall record the reason for its admission."
8. No doubt it is settled law that the Courts ought to be liberal in allowing additional evidence to be brought on record. However, it has to be seen whether the production of such documents falls within four corners of the provisions of Order XLI, rule 27, C.P.C. It is also settled law that Courts will not allow additional evidence to be brought on record to fill in the lacunae left by the party in the trial Court. In this case though the plea was taken that the rent was being deposited, the same was not proved through the documents produced in Court. It may also be observed that it is an admitted position that after receiving notice under section 18 of the Ordinance the tenant (appellant) started paying the rent to the respondent/landlord but then suddenly he shifted to depositing the rent in Court in a Miscellaneous Rent Case. This act of the appellant itself goes to show that the said practice was resorted to by I am to cause harassment to the respondent. In these circumstances this itself a mounts to defiance in payment of rent to the landlord. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the appeal merits no consideration and is accordingly disc Used with no order as to costs. The appellant shall hand over vacant possession to the respondent within sixty (60) days from the date of this order.