The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

Civil Revision Petition No.2369 of 2012

Date: 13-06-2012

Between:

Smt.B.Rukkamma

…Petitioner

And

Smt.Saloni Devi Jaiswal and another

…Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.RA.Achuthanand

Counsel for the respondents: ---

The Court made the following:

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

Civil Revision Petition No.2369 of 2012

Date: 13-06-2012

Order:

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 03-05-2012, in IA.No.15 of 2012 in RC.No.250 of 2010, on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional Rent Controller-cum-XIII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad.

I have heard Mr.RA.Achunanand, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.

The petitioner is the landlord of the petition schedule premises in respect of which he has filed the aforesaid RC

for fixation of fair rent. During the course of evidence, the petitioner had marked a certified copy of registered lease deed relating to a neighbouring mulgi in order to substantiate her plea regarding the existing market rent. Pending the said RC, the petitioner filed IA.No.15 of 2012 to summon a person viz., Malli Jayanti Lal, who is connected with Ex.P.3 to speak to its contents. This application was dismissed by the learned I Additional Rent Controller by observing that since the said document is admitted in evidence, there is no need for summoning the witness.

In her order, the learned I Additional Rent Controller proceeded on the premise that as the document in question is a registered lease deed and as the same was already marked as Ex.P.3, there is no need for summoning any witness. Though this observation may not be in strict conformity with the legal position, the fact remains that the contents of Ex.P.3 do not appear to have been disputed by the respondents. In this view of the matter, without adjudicating on the correctness or otherwise of the observation made by the learned Additional Rent Controller, I do not find it necessary to interfere with the order under revision.

The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

As a sequel, CRPMP.No.3161 of 2012, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

__________________________

(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

$13^{th} \text{ June, 2012}_{LUR}$