THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3968 OF 2013 DATED: 21.01.2014 THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3968 OF 2013 ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 18.7.2013 in R.C.No.113 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad.
The revision petitioner is the respondent in R.C.No.113 of 2011. The respondent herein filed the said R.C. under Section 10 (2) (1) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Rent Control Act’) for eviction of the revision petitioner from the petition schedule premises. The eviction petition was contested by the revision petitioner and during the enquiry the revision petitioner/respondent sought to produce in evidence a document which is described as ‘Goodwill Agreement’. The respondent herein/eviction petitioner raised an objection stating that the said document which is insufficiently stamped and unregistered is not admissible in evidence. The said objection was upheld by the learned Rent Controller and by the order under Revision it was held that the document in question cannot be marked in evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is filed.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
As could be seen from the material available on record, the revision petitioner had earlier filed a petition under Section 65 of the Evidence Act seeking permission to file the document in question i.e., Goodwill Agreement as secondary evidence. The said application was ordered and the document was received subject to proof and relevancy. Subsequently when the document was sought to be marked as exhibit through R.W.1, the respondent herein/eviction petitioner raised an objection that the said document under which the petition schedule property was stated to be leased out for 50 years requires registration. Pointing out that it was not registered and it was also insufficiently stamped, it was contended that the document is inadmissible in evidence. As mentioned above, the said objection was upheld by the learned Rent Controller.
Assailing the said order, it is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that having permitted the petitioner to produce the said document as secondary evidence, the Court below ought not to have upheld the objection as to the admissibility of the document.
It is no doubt true that the revision petitioner was permitted to produce the said document as secondary evidence, however it was made clear by the Court below in I.A.No.119 of 2013 that the document is received subject to proof and relevancy. Therefore, the contention that the respondent herein cannot raise any objection as to the admissibility of the document is untenable.
Coming to the merits of the case, the document in question which was termed as ‘Goodwill Agreement’ is admittedly a xerox copy executed on a stamp paper of Rs.5/-. A perusal of the same shows that it is to the effect that the petition schedule premises was given on rent for a period of 50 years. The revision petitioner could not dispute the fact that it is not a registered document. That being so, the said document even if filed in original, would not have been admissible in evidence. Under the circumstances, the learned Rent Controller is justified in holding that the document in question cannot be marked in evidence.
The order under Revision, therefore, warrants no interference and accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Revision Petition shall stand closed.
Justice G. Rohini Dt. 21.01.2014 GBS