# Punjab & Sind Bank v. The A.D.J.-VII, Bulandshahar & others

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 265
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/punjab-sind-bank-v-the-a-d-j-vii-bulandshahar-others-39490
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

265 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' $8*867
'$7(' $//$+$%$' $8*867
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 5+ =$,', -
7+( +21·%/( 5+ =$,', -
&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

3XQMDE

6LQG
%DQN %UDQFK .KXUMD
'LVWULFW %XODQGVKDKDU WKURXJK LWV %UDQFK
0DQDJHU
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH
$GGLWLRQDO
GLVWULFW
-XGJH
9,,
%XODQGVKDKDU DQG RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 51 .HVDUL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL 9LQRG 6LQKD

83
8UEDQ
%XLOGLQJV
5HJXODWLRQ
RI
OHWWLQJ 5HQW DQG (YLFWLRQ $FW
6 UHDG ZLWK &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD
$UWLFOH
(QKDQFHPHQW
RI
UHQW
$SSOLFDWLRQ
IRU
YDOXHUV
RI
ERWK
WKH
SDUWLHV ILOLQJ UHSRUWV 3HWLWLRQHUV YDOXHV
QRW
LQFOXGLQJ
ODQG¶V
YDOXH
LQ
GHWHUPLQLQJ 7KH PDUNHW YDOXH RI WKH
EXLOGLQJ)XUWKHU
WKLV
UHSRUW
QRW
VXSSRUWHG E\ DIILGDYLW&RXUW EHORZ KHOG
ULJKWO\ GLG QRW SODFH DQ\ UHOLDQFH RQ WKH
VDPH+HQFH QR HUURU RI ODZ FRPPLWWHG
+HOG
7KH UHSRUW ILOHG E\ WKH YDOXHU RI WKH
SHWLWLRQHU
ZDV
QRW
VXSSRUWHG
E\
DQ
DIILGDYLW
WKHUHIRUH
WKH
DXWKRULWLHV
EHORZ GLG QRW FRPPLW DQ\ HUURU RI ODZ LQ
QRW SODFLQJ WKH UHOLDQFH XSRQ WKH VDLG
UHSRUW DV WKH VDPH ZDV QRW SURYHG LQ
DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK ODZ ,W PD\ DOVR EH
QRWHG WKDW LI WKH YDOXH RI WKH ODQG LV
LQFOXGHG LQ WKH YDOXH RI WKH EXLOGLQJ DV
GHWHUPLQHG
E\
WKH
YDOXHU
RI
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU WKHUH ZRXOG UHPDLQ QRW PXFK
GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH WZR UHSRUWV ILOHG EHIRUH
WKH
DXWKRULWLHV
EHORZ
7KXV
WKH
GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RI WKH PDUNHW YDOXH DQG
HQKDQFHPHQW RI UHQW E\ WKH $SSHOODWH
$XWKRULW\ GRHV QRW ZDUUDQW LQWHUIHUHQFH
E\ WKLV FRXUW XQGHU $UWLFOH RI WKH
&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD DV WKH VDPH FDQQRW
EH VDLG WR EH EDG LQ ODZ
83
8UEDQ
%XLOGLQJV
5HJXODWLRQ
RI
OHWWLQJ UHQW DQG (YLFWLRQ $FW 6V
 DQG UHDGZLWK &RGH RI &LYLO
3URFHGXUH 2 5 -XULVGLFWLRQ
RI DSSHOODWH DXWKRULW\ WR DGPLW DGGLWLRQDO
HYLGHQFH
$SSOLFDWLRQ
IRU
DGPLWWLQJ
DGGLWLRQDO
HYLGHQFH
LQ
DSSHDO
QRW
VXSSRUWHG
E\
DIILGDYLW+HOG
ULJKWO\
UHMHFWHG 3DUD
+HOG
)URP WKH DERYH QRWHG GHFLVLRQV LW LV
DSSDUHQW WKDW WKH $SSHOODWH $XWKRULW\
DFWLQJ XQGHU 6HFWLRQ RI WKH $FW KDV
JRW
MXULVGLFWLRQ
WR
DGPLW
DGGLWLRQDO
HYLGHQFH DW WKH DSSHOODWH VWDWH EXW WKH
UHTXLUHPHQWV RI 2UGHU 5XOH &3&
DUH WR EH IROORZHG E\ WKH VDLG DXWKRULW\
ZKLOH DGPLWWLQJ WKH DGGLWLRQDO HYLGHQFH
,Q
WKH
SUHVHQW
FDVH
WKH
$SSHOODWH
$XWKRULW\ KDV IXOO\ IROORZHG WKH DIRUHVDLG
GHFLVLRQV DQG ULJKWO\ UHIXVHG WR DGPLW
WKH
DGGLWLRQDO
HYLGHQFH
DV
WKH
UHTXLUHPHQWV RI 2UGHU 5XOH ZHUH
QRW IXOILOOHG , GR QRW ILQG DQ\ LOOHJDOLW\ LQ
WKH
RUGHU
SDVVHG
E\
WKH
$SSHOODWH
$XWKRULW\ 7KH DSSOLFDWLRQ ILOHG E\ WKH
SHWLWLRQHU
IRU
SHUPLVVLRQ
WR
ILOH
DGGLWLRQDO HYLGHQFH ZDV ULJKWO\ UHMHFWHG
E\ WKH $SSHOODWH $XWKRULW\ 3DUD
&DVH /DZ GLVFXVVHG
 $5& 6& $5& 6&
 $5& $5&
$:& 835&& $5&
 $5& $5& $5&
 $5& $5& $5&
 $5& $5&
 $5& $5&

By the Court

1. By Means of this petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
3All] Punjab & Sind Bank V. The A.D.J.-VII, Bulandshahar & others 266
India, petitioner prays for issuance of
writ, order of direction in the nature of
certiorari
quashing
the
order
dated
09.091994 passed by the respondent no. 2
enhancing the rate of rent of the building
in question from Rs. 2100/- per month to
Rs. 9000/- per month, order dated
24.10.1997 rejecting the application of the
petitioner for filing additional evidence
and order dated 24.11.1997 passed by
respondent no. 1, allowing the appeal of
respondent nos. 2 to 11 and enhancing the
rate of rent of the building in question
from Rs. 9000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month
and dismissing the Appeal No. 28 of 1994
filed by the petitioner.

2. Relevant facts of the case giving
rise tot he present petition, in brief, are
that respondent nos. 3 to 11, for short,
"the contesting respondents" filed an
application under sub-section )8) of
Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972, for short, 'the Act' for
enhancing the rate of rent from Rs.2,100/-
per month to Rs. 12,258/- per month of
the building in question which was in the
tenancy
of
the
petitioner
bank.
Application
filed
by
the
contesting
respondents was opposed by the petitioner
denying
the
facts
pleaded
by
the
contesting
respondents.
Both
parties
produced evidence in support of their
cases. The documentary evidence also
included the reports of the valuers. The
contesting respondents filed the report of
M/s Agarwal Associates Engineers, which
was supported by an affidavit. The said
valuer
valued
the
building
at
Rs.
14,71,000/-. On the basis of the said
report, the contesting respondents claimed
an amount of Rs. 12,258/- plus amount of
house and water as rent. Petitioner also
filed the report of its valuer, namely, M/s
Ajit Singh Associates who valued the
building at Rs. 4,89,983/- per month. after
going through the material on the record,
the Rent Control & Eviction Officer
enhanced the amount of rent from Rs.
2,100/- to Rs. 9,000/- per month puls
amount of house and water tax by its
judgment and order dated 09.09.1994.
Challenging the validity of the said
judgment, both parties, petitioner and the
contesting
respondents,
filed
appeals
before
the
Appellate
Authority.
Petitioner's appeal was registered as
Appeal No. 28 of 1994 while that of
contesting respondents as Appeal No. 29
of 1994. During the pendency of the
above noted appeals, the petitioner filed
an application under Section 10(2) of the
Act read with Order 41 Rule 27, C.P.C. as
the
petitioner
wanted
to
produce
additional
evidence,
particularly,
an
affidavit of the Engineer in support of the
report which was not filed before the Rent
Control & Eviction Officer on account of
bona fide mistake of its counsel. The
application filed by the petitioner for
filing additional evidence was objected to
and
opposed
by
the
contesting
respondents. The appellate Court upheld
the objection filed by the contesting
respondents and dismissed the application
for filing the additional evidence holding
that by means of the said application,
petitioner wanted to fill up the lacuna in
its
case
which
was
legally
not
permissible, by judgment and order dated
24.10.1997. The Appellate Authority,
after going through the evidence on the
record, allowed the appeal filed by the
contesting respondents and enhanced the
amount of rent from Rs. 2,100/- per
month plus amount of house tax and
water tax by its order dated 24.11.1997,
hence the present petition.
267 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently urged that the Appellate
Authority acted illegally in rejecting the
application filed by the petitioner for
admission of additional evidence and has
also erred in dismissing the appeal of the
petitioner and in allowing the appeal of
the contesting respondents. It was urged
that it was on account of mistake of the
counsel that affidavit could not be filed
before the Rent Control & Eviction
Officer. The application filed by the
petitioner for admission of additional
evidence was, therefore, liable to be
allowed as the petitioner should not suffer
for a bona fide mistake committed by his
counsel.

4. On the other hand, learned
counsel appearing for the contesting
respondents vehemently urged that at the
appellate stage, the parties to the appeal
are not at liberty to file additional
evidence. Additional evidence at appellate
stage can be filed it the applicant fulfils
the requirements provided under Order 41
Rule 27. The petitioner has failed to fulfil
the
conditions
for
filing
additional
evidence, therefore, the application for
filing the additional evidence was rightly
rejected by the Appellate Authority. It
was also urged that the valuer of the
petitioner acted illegally in not including
the value of the land on which the
building is situated when it is will settled
in law that while determining the value of
the building, the value of land is also to be
included. It was also urged that the
Appellate Authority has rightly enhanced
the rent of the building in question and the
Writ Petition was, therefore, liable to be
dismissed.

5. I have considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the
parties and also carefully perused the
record.

6. The questions which arise for
determination in this petition are whether
in the market value of the building, the
value of the land on which the building is
situated, is also to be included in the
market value of the building, whether the
application filed by the petitioner for
admitting additional evidence at the
appellate stage was rightly rejected by the
Appellate Authority and as to whether the
Appellate Authority has rightly enhanced
the rate of rent of the building in question
from Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per
month.

7. Application for enhancement of
the rent was filed under subsection (8) of
Section 21 of the Act, which reads as
under:-
"(8) Nothing in clause (a) of sub-section
(1) shall apply to a building let out to the
State Government or to a local authority
or to a public sector corporation or to a
recognised educational institution unless
the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that
the landlord is a person to whom clause
(ii) or clause (iv) of the Explanation to
sub section (1) is applicable:

Provided that in the case of such a
building the District Magistrate may, on
the application of the landlord, enhance
the monthly rent payable therefor to a
sum equivalent to one-twelfth of ten
percent of the market value of the
building under tenancy, and the rent so
enhanced shall be payable from the
commencement of the month of tenancy
following the date of the application:

Provided further that a similar
application for further enhancement may
3All] Punjab & Sind Bank V. The A.D.J.-VII, Bulandshahar & others 268
be made after the expiration of a period of
five years from the date of the last order
of enhancement"

From the aforesaid statutory provision, it
is apparent that on the application made
by the landlord, the District Magistrate
may enhance monthly rent payable in
respect of a building let out to the State
Government or to a local authority or to
public
sector
corporation
or
to
a
recognised educational institution to a
sum equivalent to one-twelfth of the ten
percent of the market value of the
building under the tenancy and the rent so
enhanced shall be payable from the
commencement of the month of tenancy
following the date of application. Such
enhancement would be permissible on
expiration of five years from the date of
the last order of enhancement of the rent.
Petitioner bank which is a company
within the meaning of Section 3 of the
companies Act, 1956 and comes within
the
definition
of
"public
sector
corporation" as defined under clause (p)
of Section 3 of the Act. For the purposes
of enhancement of the rent, the market
value of the building in question has to be
determined.
Parties
have
produced
evidence in support of their cases oral (in
the form of affidavits) and documentary
including the valuers' reports. As stated
above, the contesting respondents filed
the report of M/s. Agrawal Associates
Engineers, which was supported by an
affidavit in which the value of the
building and land on which the building
was situated, was included and the same
was valued at Rs. 17,71,000/-. On the
other hand, the petitioner filed the report
of its valuer, namely, M/s. Ajit Singh
Associates who assessed the market value
of the property in dispute at Rs.
12,51,990/- (i.e., Rs. 6,75,000/- value of
the land and Rs. 5,75,990/- value of the
building). However, petitioner's valuer
deducted the value of the land from the
value of the building, which was illegal
and contrary to law. It is well settled in
law that the value of the land on which
the building is situated, is to be included
in the market value of the building while
determining the market value under the
aforesaid proviso. A reference in this
regard may be made to the decisions in
Central Bank of India and others v. II
Additional District Judge, Jhansi and
others, 1989 (1) ARC 340 (SC); State of
Uttar
Pradesh
and
others
v.
VII
Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and
others, 1992 (2) ARC 571 (SC); State of
Uttar
Pradesh
and
others
v.
VII
Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and
others, 1992 (1) ARC 265 and State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Roop Kishore Tandon
others, 1987 (2) ARC 359. The report
filed by the valuer of the petitioner was
not supported by an affidavit, therefore,
the authorities below did not commit any
error of law in not placing the reliance
upon the said report, as the same was not
proved in accordance with law. It may
also be noted that if the value of the land
is included in the value of the building as
determined by the valuer of the petitioner,
there would remain not much difference
in the two reports filed before the
authorities below. Thus, the determination
of the market value and enhancement of
rent by the Appellate Authority does not
warrant interference by this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as
the same cannot be said to be bad in law.

8. So far as the second question
regarding
admission
of
additional
evidence at appellate stage is concerned,
it may be noted that aggrieved by the
judgment and order passed by the
269 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
Prescribed Authority, appeal was filed by
the petitioner under Section 22 of the Act.
Section 22 of the Act reads as follows:-

"22. Appeal - Any person aggrieved by
an order under Section 21 or Section 24
may within thirty days from the date of
the order prefer an appeal against it to the
District Judge, and in other respects, the
provisions of Section 10 shall mutatis
matandis apply in relation to such
appeal."

9. Section 22 of the Act specifically
provided that the provisions of Section 10
of the Act shall mutatis mutandis (i.e.
with such changes as may be necessary)
apply in relation to such appeal. Sub-
section (2) of Section 10 of the Act reads
as under:-
Appeal against order under Sections 8,9
and 9-A.
(1) ................................
(2) The appellate authority may confirm,
vary or rescind the order, or remand the
case
to
the
District
Magistrte
for
rehearing,
and
may
also
take any
additional evidence, and pending its
decision, stay the operation of the order
under appeal on such terms, if any, as it
thinks fit."

(underlined to supply emphasis)

From a plain reading of the aforesaid
statutory provisions, it is apparent that the
Appellate Authority, while dealing with
and deciding an appeal under Section 22
of the Act, has got the jurisdiction to
admit additional evidence. In the present
case, the case was decided by the
Prescribed Authority by its judgment and
order dated 09.09.1994 whereby the rate
of rent was enhanced from Rs. 2,100/- per
month to Rs. 9,000/-. Challenging the
validity of the said order, two appeals
were filed before the Appellate Authority,
one by the petitioner and the other by the
contesting respondents. It wa during the
pendency of the said appeals that an
application was filed by the petitioner for
permission to produce the additional
evidence, a copy of which is contained as
Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The said
application was not supported by any
affidavit. In the said application, only it
was
stated
that
inadvertently
some
documents could not be produced before
the Prescribed Authority, the same were
being produced alongwith a list of papers,
therefore,
permission
to
file
said
documents be granted. Said application
was objected to and opposed by the
contesting respondents pleading that by
means of the said application, the
petitioner wanted to fill up the lacuna in
its case as the petitioner, besides other
papers, wanted to file an affidavit of the
valuer so that the valuer's report may
become admissible in evidence, which
was
legally
not
permissible.
The
application, according to the contesting
respondents, therefore, was liable to be
rejected. The Appellate Authority upheld
the
objection
and
dismissed
the
application by its judgment and order
dated 24.10.1997 holding that no case for
filing additional evidence was at all made
out and that the additional evidence was
sought to be filed to fill up the lacuna in
the
case
which
was
legally
not
permissible.

10. The question as to whether the
Appellate Authority had the jurisdiction
to admit additional evidence and as to
whether it could reject the same, arose in
several cases and stands already decided.

11. In Haji Abdul Samad Vs. Jalal
Uddin, 1976 A.W.C. 73, it was held that
3All] Punjab & Sind Bank V. The A.D.J.-VII, Bulandshahar & others 270
the Appellate Authority has got the
jurisdiction to admit additional evidence
in the appeal. Appellate Authority has to
exercise the power with circumspection
although Section 10 (2) of the Act does
not place any restriction on the power of
the Appellate Authority but such a
restriction is implied inasmuch as the
appellate Court could not be treated like
the original Court. A distinction has got to
be maintained between the powers of an
original court and the appellate Court.
The power given to the Appellate
Authority is discretionary and High Court
will not be justified in interfering with the
refusal to admit additional evidence.

12. In M/s. Gur Narain Jagat Narain
& Company Vs. M/s. Motor and General
Sales Private Limited and others, 1977
U.P.R.C.C. 58, it war ruled by this Court
that though Section 10 (2) of the Act does
not lay down expressly any condition as
mentioned in Order 41 Rule 27, C.P.C.,
the principle contained in the latter, afford
proper
guidelines
to
the
Appellate
Authority in dealing with appeals under
the Act and the principles of Rule 27 of
Order 41, C.P.C., are applicable to the
cases in which additional evidence is
sought to be filed at appellate stage.
Section 10 (2), Section 34 and section 38
read with Rule 22 of the rules framed
under the Act have to be read together to
ascertain the intention of the legislature
and have to be harmoniously interpreted.

13. In Krishna Kumar Agarwal Vs. I
Additional District and Sessions Judges,
Saharanpur, 1978 A.R.C. 294, while
considering the provisions of Section
10(2) of the Act, it was ruled that the
Appellate
Authority
has
got
the
discretionary power to admit the evidence
and that unless conditions mentioned in
Order 47 Rule 27, C.P.C., are fulfilled,
additional evidence cannot be admitted at
appellate stage.

14. In Radhey Shyam Vs. II A.D.J.
and others, 1980 A.R.C. 590, this Court
held that Section 10(2) of the Act confers
the powers to admit additional evidence
upon the Appellate Authority. Rule 22
also supplement the said power and
although Order 41 Rule 27, C.P.C. in
terms does not apply to the proceedings
under the Act, however it principles
should
be
resorted
for
admitting
additional evidence for fulfilling the
requirements of Rule 17.

15. In Nanak Prasad Vs. Sahdev
Prasad Srivastava and another, 1982
A.R.C. 76, it was held that Section 10(2)
of the Act gives ample power to the
Appellate Authority to admit additional
evidence at appellate stage. In the appeals
filed under Section 22 of the Act,
provisions of Section 10 apply mutatis
mutandis. Similar view was taken by this
Court in Narendra Kumar Vs. IV A.D.J.
Meerut, 1983 A.R.C. 723, wherein it was
held that Section 10(2) of the Act Applic
mutatis mutandis to Section 22 under
which the appeal is filed against the
orders passed by the Prescribed Authority.
Thus, the Appellate Authoirty has got the
power to take additional eivdence by the
requirements of Order 41 Rule 27, C.P.C.,
are to be fulfilled before any evidence is
taken at the appellate stage.
Same view has been taken by this
Court in the following cases:-

1.
Wasi Ahmad alias Wasi Mohd. Vs.
V A.D.J. Agra and another, 1983, ARC.
789.
2.
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Ii A.D.J. and
others
1983(2)
A.R.C.
264.
271 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
3.
Om Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Prescribed
Authority, Allahabad, 1984, A.R.C. 52.

4.
Bhola Nath Vs. A.D.J., Gonda and
others, 1985(1), A.R.C. 445.

5.
Bhola Nath Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim and
another, 1987(1) A.R.C. 103.

6.
Sardar Harbhajan Singh Vs. Hari
Babu and another, 1996(2), A.R.C. 498.
7.
Shanta Ram Vs. VII A.D.J. Kanpur
and another, 1997(1) A.R.C. 31.

16. From the above noted decisions,
it is apparent that the Appellate Authority
acting under Section 22 of the Act has
got
jurisdiction
to
admit
additional
evidence at the appellate stage but the
requirements of Order 41 Rule 27, C.P.C.,
are to be followed by the said authority
while admitting the additional evidence.
In
the present case, the Appellate
Authority has fully followed the aforesaid
decision and rightly refused to admit the
additional evidence as the requirements or
Order 41 Rule 27 were not fulfilled. I do
not find any illegality in the order passed
by
the
Appellate
Authority.
The
application filed by the petitioner for
permission to file additional evidence was
rightly
rejected
by
the
Appellate
Authority.

17. From the material on the record,
particularly from the report of the valuer,
namely
M/S.
Agrawal
Associates
Engineers which was supported by an
affidavit that market value of the building
was assessed at Rs. 14,71,000/-, therefore,
the Prescribed Authority rightly enhanced
the rate of rent to Rs. 12,000/- per month
which was equivalent to 1/12th of 10
percent of the market value. The report
which was filed by the petitioner to
contradict
the
report
filed
by
the
contesting respondents, for the reasons
stated
above,
was
inadmissible
in
evidence and the same was rightly
discarded by the Appellate Authority.

18. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, No. case for interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is made out.

19. The writ petition fails and is
hereby dismissed with cost.
Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6+<$0$/ .80$5 6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 6+<$0$/ .80$5 6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6KDPEKX 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH (OHFWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ 83 7KURXJK
LWV 6HFUHWDU\ DQG RWKHUV«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL $3 6DKL
6KUL $VKRN 6LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 6. 0LVUD
6KUL %' 0DQGK\DQ
6&

83
3DQFKD\DW
5DM
(OHFWLRQ
RI
PHPEHUV 3UDGKDQ DQG 83 3UDGKDQ
5XOHV

UXOHV

UHDG
ZLWK
&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

-XULVGLFWLRQ EDU9LOODJH 3UDGKDQ (OHFWLRQ
±UHVXOW GHFODUHGLQIRUPDWLRQ VHQG WR WKH
'LVWULFW 0DJLVWUDWH ZKR RUGHUHG IRU UH
FRXQWLQJ IRXQG LOOHJDO +LJK &RXUW FDQ
LQWHUIHUH XQGHU $UWLFOH