THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2272, 2278 AND 2288 OF 2014 Dated:14-08-2014 Between:
Tanduri Prakash
... PETITIONER
AND
K. Hanumantha Rao
.. RESPONDENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2272, 2278 AND 2288 OF 2014 COMMON ORDER:
The respondent filed R.C No. 138 of 2011 before the III Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner for eviction from the suit schedule properties. The recording of the evidence in the R.C is in progress.
During the course of examination of the petitioner herein, the respondent confronted him with a photocopy of the document dated 10- 05-2010. According to the document, the petitioner is said to have agreed to vacate the premises. The petitioner denied the said document. Therefore, the respondent filed I.A Nos. 193, 194 and 195 of 2014 to reopen the R.C, to recall PW 1 and to receive document dated 10-05-2010. The Rent Controller allowed the applications. Hence, these revisions.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent who filed caveat.
The plea of the respondent is that the original of the document which is sought to be filed is with the petitioner’s counsel and that despite repeated requests, the original was not filed. In a way, he wanted to place the secondary evidence before the learned Rent Controller. On finding that a case is made out for it, the learned Rent Controller allowed the I.As.
The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that what was sought to be placed before the Rent Controller is a secondary evidence and unless a strong case is made out for it, as required by law, it cannot be received in evidence. Reliance is placed upon certain precedents.
It is no doubt true that the party that intends to place secondary evidence before the trial Court must prove certain ingredients and until then, it cannot be taken into account. In the instant case, however, the proceedings are initiated under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and Rule 8 of the Rules made thereunder is to the effect that no regular trial need be undertaken and that it is only the gist of the deposition that may be recorded. Further, the Rent Controller cannot pronounce on the title of the parties even if an original is placed before it. If there exists any genuine doubt about the relationship between the parties or the title of the landlord, the matter has to be referred to the civil Court. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner on account of receiving of the document in question. He can put forward all the contentions vis-à-vis the document, once it becomes part of the record.
The C.R.Ps are accordingly dismissed.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in these revisions shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
14-08-2014
ks