NAVEEN KAMAL JOHAR Vs. MADANLAL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the respondent in R.C. No. 410 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the III-Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The respondent herein filed the said R.C. No. 410 of 2011 under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (for short, 'the Act') seeking eviction of the revision petitioner from the petition schedule premises. During trial, the respondent herein/the petitioner in R.C. No. 410 of 2011 filed his affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. However, the revision petitioner opposed and filed an application (IA (SR) No. 999 of 2013) with a prayer to eschew the said chief-examination contending that as per Rule 8(2) of the Rules made under the Act, the evidence of the parties to the Rent Control case shall be recorded by the Rent Controller in the open Court. The said contention was not accepted by the learned Rent Controller and accordingly by the order under Revision, IA (SR) No. 999 of 2013 was rejected. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition by the respondent/tenant in R.C. No. 410 of 2011. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under Revision.

(2.) The question whether the parties to the Rent Control Case can file affidavits in lieu of chief-examination is no longer res integra.

(3.) After considering Rule 8(2) of the Rules as well as Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C. as amended by Act 46 of 1999 and Act 22 of 2002 and after reviewing the decided cases on the issue, this Court held in Avula Raghuramaiah v. Pallempaati Seetamma that the reception of chief-examination in the form of an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C. cannot be said to be in any way inconsistent with Rule 8(2) of the Rules.