MURTAZA MOOSAVI Vs. HEMENDRA V SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 25-8-2004 in I .A. No.78 of 2003 in R.C.No.399 of 2000 on the file of the Court of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

(2.) The brief fact of the matter leading to filing of the civil revision petition is as follows.

(3.) The first respondent here in filed a rent control case being R.C. No.399 of 2000 under the provisions of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 against the petitioner herein and second respondent on the ground of default in payment of rent, subletting, bona fide requirement and wastage of the property. During the enquiry, the first respondent as P.W.1 admitted that his clerk (Rent Collector) used to maintain registers and make entries of the rents received. Therefore, the petitioner here in filed an application being I.A. No.132 of 2002 under Order XI Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking a direction to the first respondent herein to produce the register showing the alleged collection of rents. The first respondent filed counter affidavit stating that Rajeswara Rao, the clerk, left the first respondent in May 2000 and that in spite of search he could not find the rent register. For that reason, the petitioner here in filed I. A.No.78 of 2003 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Act, for brevity) seeking leave of the Court of the 11 Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad before whom the case is pending to lead secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Act. He wanted to mark Xerox copies of relevant rent register maintained by Rajeswara Rao. Hiscase is that Rajeswara Rao, who was the rent collector, handed over Xerox copies of relevant pages of rent register to the petitioner here in. The application was opposed on two grounds, vix., Xerox copies cannot be received in evidence and that the same are fabricated. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that the ingredients of Section 65 of the Act are not satisfied.