GORREPATI INDIRA Vs. M MARRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These civil revision petitions are filed by the un-successful landlady being aggrieved by the reversing order made by the Principal Senior Civil Judge-appellate authority in the respective R.C.C.M.As.

(2.) The landlady filed R.C.C.Nos.14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of 1984 on the file of the Rent Controller, Vijayawada and the learned Rent Controller after recording the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and marking Exs.A-1 to A-40 and after recording the evidence of R.W.I/respondent in R.C.C.No.21 of 1984 R.W.2 in R.C.C.No.19 of 1984 and R.W.3 in R.C.C.No.20 of 1984 and after marking Exs.B-1 to B-4, having framed the points for consideration, on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the land lady is entitled to the relief prayed for and allowed the aforesaid R.C.C.s. It is stated that in pursuance there of, four of the tenants had vacated the respective premises, but, however, the others had carried the matter by way of appeals and the appellate authority/Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, had reversed the same mainly on the ground that the original title deed was not produced and only photostat copy was produced and also there is some doubt relating to the identity and had allowed the appeals. Asagainst R.C.C.No.16of 1984, R.C.C.M.A.No.53 of 1987, as against R.C.C.15 of 1984 R.C.C.M.A.52 of 1987, as against R.C.C.No.21 of 1984, R.C.C.M.A. No.58 of 1987, as against R.C.C.No.18 of 1984, R.C.C.M.A.No.55 of 1987, as against R.C.C.No.14 of 1984 R.C.C.MANo.51 of 1987 and as against R.C.C.No.17 of 1984, R.C.C.MANo.54 of 1987 were preferred by the respective tenants. Inasmuch as a common order was reversed by yet another common order by the appellate authority, the landlady questioning the said order had preferred C.R.P.Nos.2685,2686 2687,3118, 3206 and 3475 of 2002 respectively.

(3.) Contentions of Sri Laxmi Prasad: Sri Laxmi Prasad learned counsel representing the revision petitioner/landlady had taken this Court through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also would submit that in several of the R.C.Cs., the tenants even had not chosen to enter into the witness box and as far as R.W.2 and R.W.3 are concerned, they have already vacated the premises. In the light of the same, the evidence of R.W.1 alone is available on record as on to-day, since R.W.1 is contesting the matter in C.R.P.No.2687 of 2002.The learned counsel also would submit that the title to the property and the identity of the property, these questions are in serious controversy and no objection had been taken at the time of marking of the documents, but, however, on the ground that the title deed is only a photostat copy, the same has been reversed by the appellate authority. The learned counsel also would submit that except C.R.P.No.2687 of 2002, in all other revisions, the respective tenants had not chosen to enter into the witness box. The learned counsel in all fairness would submit that no doubt, common evidence was recorded and common order was passed and hence, the other evidence available on record also may be looked into. The learned counsel also had brought to the notice of this Court that the registration copy of the title deed is produced before this Court so as to satisfy the court in relation to the question in controversy. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and would contend that these findings are well considered findings and reversing the same on certain unsustainable grounds by the appellate authority cannot be sustained.