Muppalla Subba Rao v. Vundrajavarapu Sarma Rao

24-9-2010 CRP NO.4372/2010: Muppalla Subba Rao …Petitioner V. Vundrajavarapu Sarma Rao ..Respondent The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP Nos.4372 and 4373 of 2010 Common Order: Since the parties in both the revision petitions are one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. The revision petitioner herein will be, hereinafter, referred to as “the tenant” and the respondent herein will be hereinafter referred to as “the landlord”. The tenant filed these revision petitions assailing the correctness of the judgments passed by the Appellate Authority under Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Principal Senior Civil Judge), Rajahmundry dt. 20-7-2010 in RCA No.5/10 and 6/10 (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Authority”), whereunder learned Judge dismissed the appeals confirming the orders passed by the Rent Controller (Principal Junior Civil Judge), Rajahmundry dt. 29-1-2010 (for short “the Rent Controller”) dismissing IA No.2868/2009 filed under Order XVII Rule 17 CPC to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of confronting the document filed along with a separate application and IA No.2869/2009 filed under Order VIII Rule 3 CPC to receive Photostat copy of agreement dt.9-6-2009, respectively.

The landlord filed the above RCC No.3/2008 for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement. When the matter was coming up for arguments, the tenant filed two IAs, namely, IA No.2868/2009 under Order XVII Rule 17 CPC for recalling recall P.W.1 for the purpose of confronting the documents filed along with a separate application and also IA No.2869/2009 under Order VIII Rule 3 CPC for receiving Photostat copy of agreement dt.9-6-2009 stating that the landlord is not in requirement of the schedule premises and he received a cover from unknown person, wherein document pertaining to the landlord was sent to him and on perusal of the said document, it is noticed that it is a Photostat copy of agreement dt. 9-6-2009 said to have been executed by the landlord showing the address of the landlord at Hyderabad and his wife is no more, and therefore, it is necessary to confront the landlord with the said document.

The landlord resisted the said applications by filing separate counters. The Rent Controller by separate orders dt. 29-1-2010 dismissed both the petitions holding that the tenant is not sure about the genuineness of the document sought to be filed and the said document is subsequent to the evidence of P.W.1-landlord, the same cannot be received. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed R.C.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2010 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed both RCAs stating that Photostat copy of the agreement said to have been executed by the landlord was received from an unknown person, according to the tenant itself; the tenant is not clear whether the said document is genuine or not; the wife of the landlord is not a party to RCC No.3/2008; whether the wife of the landlord is alive by 9-6-2009 or not is no relevant for the disposal of RCC; and appeal against interlocutory order cannot be maintained as held by this Court in JALEEL KHAN V. M.KAMALAMMMA[1] Learned counsel for the revision petitioner-tenant in both the revision petitions contends that the tenant should be given an opportunity to establish that the landlord is not required the schedule premises for his personal occupation, which is evident from the Photostat copy of the agreement, sought to be marked on behalf of the tenant.

It is not in dispute, the tenant received a cover from unknown person containing an agreement dt. 9-6-2009 said to have been executed by the landlord and it contains the signature of the landlord. The same cannot be marked in view of the bar contained under Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act. Further, the order passed by the Rent Controller is interlocutory in nature and against interlocutory order, no appeal lies. The Appellate Authority rightly held that appeals are not maintainable against the orders passed by the Rent Controller. The findings recorded by Rent Controller as confirmed by the Appellate Authority do not suffer from any illegality with regard to admissibility of the document ie., Photostat copy of the agreement dt. 9-6-2009. Both the Civil Revision Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. Dt.24-9-2010 Kmr [1] 2001(5) ALT 595 (DB)